2

I mean often you see uploaded videos containing content presumably copyrighted by 3rd party with the uploader stating:

"I don't own any rights in this video"

What effect does stating such have? Is this supposed to provide some sort of defense against takedown notices, remove personal liability / help establish parody or fair use defense or is jut a legal folk remedy?

Improve this question
6
  • Because its not legal to use content you don't own.
    – Putvi
    Commented Apr 23, 2019 at 19:43
  • 2
    It's also not legal to distribute it without permission and yet here a person uploads a video, presumably copyrighted by someone else, does not state who the copyright owner is, does not state that it is uploaded with permission just that they don't own any rights in it, that seems a bit odd doesn't it ?
    – user3425421
    Commented Apr 23, 2019 at 19:45
  • No it doesn't sound odd, I don't mean that to be rude, but if I had something that could be illegal I wouldn't give it to my friend without telling him.
    – Putvi
    Commented Apr 23, 2019 at 19:46
  • We are usually talking about clips from popular shows and movies, there is no reasonable assumption that the uploader is the copyright owner, also as part of the youtube terms of use you accept not to assume that uploaded content is owned by the uploaders or that any rights are granted to you by virtue of it being made available
    – user3425421
    Commented Apr 23, 2019 at 19:50
  • This has been posted about an hour ago, I tend to agree with @Smart455 but would like to wait and see if anyone has a counterpoint or additional information about this practice to offer - your own answer is inadequate for reasons discussed in the comment chat chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/92804/…
    – user3425421
    Commented Apr 23, 2019 at 22:02

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

There's no legal significance in that.

According to one lawyer, he saw someone give this as "legal advice" and some half-brains are using this "technique" for fair use or something.

Internet is full of people who don't know anything about the law yet give legal advice to others. Unfortunately, some others take this "advice" seriously. Who knows, maybe it's part of some cruel joke or social experiment.

Improve this answer
1
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – feetwet ♦
    Commented Apr 23, 2019 at 20:59
-1

The purpose of saying they do not own the content is not a legal defense. They are telling you they don't have any say so in how it is used.

Some people reuse parts of Youtube videos. What if you owned a TV station and someone played a Youtube video that contained copyrighted content on the TV and you got in trouble?

The point is that you shouldn't do anything you are not authorized to do with the copyrighted content and they are letting you know they can not give you permission in case someone thought that the creator of the video owned all of the content and was OK with it being reused.

Improve this answer
4
  • 1
    Part of the youtube terms is that having the content made available to you does not give you any rights in it, so it can't be the viewer they're protecting - the only way this would make sense is that if otherwise the uploader could be held liable for a viewer making unauthorized use of this content and claiming he thought the uploader owned it and gave permission by virtue of uplpoading it to youtube
    – user3425421
    Commented Apr 23, 2019 at 19:56
  • Plenty of uploaders are OK with people reusing their content though. They aren't going to say reuse my videos then not tell you when there is something in one that may not be OK to reuse.
    – Putvi
    Commented Apr 23, 2019 at 20:23
  • If Bob posts a video which contains Fred's copyrighted material in a way that would constitute fair use, and Joe extracts that copyrighted material from Bob's video and uses it in a manner that doesn't constitute fair use but infringes Fred's copyright, holding Bob liable for Joe's conduct would generally throw the concept of "fair use" out the window. If Bob did anything that might be perceived as having invited Joe's actions, however, then Bob might become liable. I would think a disclaimer would serve to avoid any possibility that Bob was inviting anyone to copy Fred's material, ...
    – supercat
    Commented Feb 9, 2021 at 22:36
  • ...especially if Bob were to invite others to copy Bob's content.
    – supercat
    Commented Feb 9, 2021 at 22:39

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .