The reason for reposting would be to not give exposure to someone getting 'famous' for problematic behavior that is likely causing injury to others and certainly endangering lives.

Credit is obvious since it is included in the video. Video would not be transformed in any way, and discussion would take place on reddit or other discussion platforms.

Video in question is a dashcam recording. Video would not be changed in any way and is absolutely not for any commercial use or profit.

Would this instance qualify as fair use? Criticism and commentary are the only goals and it is obvious that this is the case.

2 Answers 2


Video would not be transformed in any way, and discussion would take place on reddit or other discussion platforms.

So you are copying someone else's video and reposting it verbatim and in full in vimeo, without adding any additional content of your own?

What is even the need for it? If you want to discuss the video in Reddit or similar, you can link to the original video instead of your copy.

The usual way that fair use is used is when you include the relevants parts of the work being criticized as part of your video. There are other points to take into consideration; IP lawsuits are very specific of the details of the works involved (for examples it could be easier to consider fair use the inclusion of the full original work if it were a short one that if it were a long one) so it is difficult to give an absolute "yes" or "no" answer.

But what you attempt to do seems highly problematic. If your argument were valid, what would prevent me from setting an URL to download the latest Hollywood blockbuster because I am commenting about it on Reddit? Imagine that I start selling copies of "The Avengers XXII: A day at the Park"1 adding just a note at the end saying "I like this movie, but they played frisbee a lot too much" as opinion/commentary/criticism... do you think that it would qualify as "fair use"?2

Coupled with the fact that it seems that copying the video seems not necessary for commenting on it (again, just link to the source) I would consider more prudent3 not copying it.

1Well, technically I would say that I were selling my opinion (which is perfectly legal), with the film included only as "fair use" to provide context to my opinion.

2Answer: No, it would not.

3I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, and this site does not provide legal advice.


You're fine. The original owner may file a copyright claim against your channel. The worst that can happen is the video getting taken down and one of three strikes being applied against your channel. However, you may defend this claim by appealing against the strike, stating that you are making a critical commentary on the video, thereby making its use under fair use.

It is unlikely that you will be personally sued for copyright infringement, but if you are genuinely using the material for review purposes then such a suit can be defended.

  • Thanks! I was just interested if this use actually does qualify as fair use or not, not too worried about video being removed or legal repercussions, was just curious if it qualified or not. Sep 12, 2019 at 2:35
  • 1
    This is unlikely to be correct if the critical commentary are not made as part of the posted copy, and is dubious if more than the amount required to make the point of the commentary clear is posted even if the commentary is posted along with the copy. Sep 12, 2019 at 16:06

You must log in to answer this question.

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