Is it allowed to share propaganda materials for educational purposes? Materials that incite violence and justify killing of certain people?

Question

I have found and fully subtitled a pro-war propaganda video from a Russian TV channel. The channel is banned in most of the world. The video is aimed at school children and justifies the war and extermination of nazis in Ukraine.

Whether there are nazis in Ukraine does not matter, justifying the extermination of a certain group of people is illegal, right? By United Nations and most individual countries?

The "nazi" definition provided in the video is quite broad, and based on the criteria provided, could easily be applied to millions of people in Ukraine. Some of the criteria from the video:

• interpreting Holodomor as genocide
• justifying the Orange revolution

I have uploaded this video on my YouTube channel.

Is there a way for me to argue that having this video on my YouTube channel is beneficial for the whole human civilization? Since it provides perspective on the state-controlled media in Russia?

I know that technically I have broken the copyright of the video creator. But if they ever decide to sue me over the video (which is highly unlikely), is there an argument I could make to protect myself?

Similar examples of the situation I described above:

• Nazi propaganda videos during the Second World War that justify the killing of jews and gypsies.
• Propaganda videos from the Islamic state that justify the killing of Yazidi people.
• Videos that justify and promote Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, etc

Also, my question is about sharing the videos when the war promoted in them is ongoing.

Answer 1

united-states

In the US it is not unlawful to produce and display a video arguing for the Russian invasion of Ukraine, whether the intent is to support that invasion or to document the claims of those who do support it, and argue that they are invalid.

Such a video would be protected by copyright, and copying it and redistributing it with subtitles might well be an infringement of that copyright, if done without permission. On the other hand, doing so with the intent of educating others about Russian claims might constitute fair use. If so, it would not be copyright infringement under US law.

Aside from the copyright issue (which would be up to the copyright holder to take action on) US law does not really care what the motivation for posting such a sub-titled video might be. Whether or not it is "beneficial for the whole human civilization" is not relevant to US law. It is protected by the First Amendment against government suppression. That would not affect YouTube, as a private actor,, determining not to host it on their site.

Answer 2

The essential legal question is whether "political necessity" constitutes an exception to copyright law. The simple answer is, no it does not. The closest that you can come is appealing to the "fair use" doctrine of US copyright law. If the copyright holders decide to sue you, you would have to argue that your use is allowed because (a) your use is political commentary, (b) the original is more "factual and historical" than "artistic creation" and (c) probably has little effect on the market for the original work. In addition, providing subtitles is maybe a transformative use. It does fail the "amount of copying" test.

You could hire a lawyer who specializes in this area to get an analysis of the proposed use, to get an assessment of your chances on a fit use argument. If you're worried about getting sued in Russia – or France – the fair use argument will get you nowhere.

On request (in he form of a DMCA takedown notice), YouTube would take down your video.

Answer 3

in germany the shape matters

The simple case

Let's assume we have a video made by an organization advocating for a war of agression and you copy it wholesale, without commentary.

You got into a pickle via two prongs: on the one hand, you violate the copyright of the original organization, but you also might (depending on content) commit "Volksverhetzung" under §130 StGB - aka incitement of the masses [to unlawful behavior or hate].

The Worst Case

Let's spin the example further. Let's assume the original organisation isn't just advocating, but they are also banned under §129 StGB, 129a StGB and subject to confiscation under 129b StGB and declared unconstitutional - like the Nazi Party. Now, you are disseminating the propaganda of an illegal unconstitutional organization! You might quickly end up breaking many of the Title 3 paragraph, such as §86 StGB (use of unconstitutional organization propaganda), §88 StGB (sabotage), §89 StGB (influence on armed forces), and in the worst case possibly half of the others too!

The best defense is Critique

But you can also protect your ass. As said, the shape matters! Because so far, we only covered without commentary. It changes with critique or if bound into a curriculum of sorts.

When the material is dissected and commented on, the new work becomes commentary and critique to the source material, making an exception from the copyrights. You may do that explicitly.

Further, Protocols and texts, even films from the nazi era are regularly dissected in history classes, where the context and shape of the critique make sure to apply to the exceptions in §86 StGB, as I elaborated here.