Hot answers tagged

5

Unfortunately, the "but everyone does that" (BEDT) argument doesn't hold water as evidenced by prosecutions of looters. Would uploading this video be a copyright infringement? It would be hard to answer this part of the question without knowing where and from whom the clips had come from. If the clips came from a company like ESPN or a YouTuber that ...


4

This has some basis in law. You need permission from a person to commercially exploit their likeness especially in California, and a waiver is a way of staving off future lawsuit over right of publicity. YT has a privacy policy whereby a person who have been filmed can request removal of the video (see also this, because they don't explain the policy in a ...


3

Evaluating a potential copyright violation is very fact-intensive, so we don't have enough information to answer the question. Making a copy is generally going to be a copyright violation, but there's still going to be a lot of breathing room under the fair use doctrine. Again, we'd need more details to provide a useful answer, but you may be able to ...


3

The "Standard Youtube License" or TOS reads You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. That stipulates no "free usage" and as such, you cannot use a screenshot (...


3

In general, a gameplay video would be either a partial copy or a derivative work, and in either case an infringement if created without permission. Such a video might be covered under fair use in US copyright law, particularly if made for the purpose of commentary on a game or instruction in how to play or design a game. In general, a fair use defense is ...


3

Everything you need to know about uploading to YouTube and copyright law is in their Terms of Service, particularly the section of Copyright: Copyright and rights management - YouTube Help and in the Frequently asked copyright questions - YouTube Help. It is simply illegal to upload movies for which you don't have copyright or a license to distribute. ...


3

If Mayo's content was against YouTube's Terms of Service, due to copyright, illegal activity or lack of model releases for the people filmed, I think by now Google would have taken his channel down due to complaints and Google's own housekeeping. To me this seems like he directly profits off of destroying these people's reputations... What is happening ...


3

Yes, as long as they give you credit, the Creative Commons - Attribution License (CC-BY) allows a person to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially


2

Youtube is very clear on their usage policy; Music from this library is intended solely for use by you in videos and other content that you create. Futhermore, when you download the music from their library. You agree that you will not make it available in any form or anything other than your own creations. Here is the exact text they use regarding ...


2

The information contained in the end credits probably isn't protected by copyright (which protects expressions of ideas, not ideas and facts themselves), instead it protects the particular way that those end credits are expressed. Hence, the background music and the font of the text and any other fideldy bits that go in there to interest the audience are ...


2

Another issue not discussed is that he is technically making a "Citizens' Arrest" which is a lawful arrest by a non-deputized citizen of a person who is breaking the law. In Common Law districts such as the United States, Citizens' Arrests are legal provided that the person who is subject to the arrest is treated in a legal fashion by the person arresting ...


2

Yes it's illegal. Just like singing/whistling happy birthday in public (used to be) illegal. You could be sued for untold amount of damages that could ruin your life forever (in theory). If you whistle a mashup remix then it's legal as long as it's different enough from the original that you can't tell that they are the same song anymore. Yes anyone can ...


2

You would have created a "derivative work" (PDF link) of the original. If you did so without permission then you will have violated the copyright of the creator. The link above is for the US, but most jurisdictions are substantially similar.


2

No matter who uploads video content to YouTube - be it an individual, another site or a third-party app - the uploader is still bound by YouTube's Terms of Service and copyright stipulations: You further agree that Content you submit to the Service will not contain third party copyrighted material, or material that is subject to other third party ...


2

The FTC has not been explicit about how their threat works, but it probably involves holding Youtube and channel-owners jointly liable. Already, Youtube has been held massively liable for child-directed content that they didn't create. Under COPPA regulations, a Web site or online service directed to children means a commercial Web site or online ...


2

If the book you read is in the public domain* you should be fine. Otherwise what you are doing is copyright infringement and probably not protected by fair use**. One of the rights granted to copyright holders is to control derivative works, and transference to different mediums, which is what your recordings would be. Under US law, whether an instance of ...


2

The question doesn't say what the source of the original image of the tattooed person is. That image will be protected by copyright, unless it has been released under a permissive license, or is old enough that copyright has expired (unlikely), or has lost or never had copyright protection for some other reason (possible but also unlikely). In the absence ...


2

The question that you need to answer is whether, when you embed, you "copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content". It seems that you have done that, i.e. you didn't just "watch". The next question is whether you have "prior written consent of YouTube". Youtube requires a license from ...


1

[...] Also, there was no license int the starter files. [...] You wrote it... they have no license! Having no license, they don't qualify as open source software, so theoretically you should actually not use them. I guess they won't sue you for using them to start your projects, but I guess they might want to if you use them to make and publish ...


1

Indiviual words and short phrases such as titles cannot be protected by copyright. However, they can be protected by trademark law. "Android" is a trademark in the US, in the EU, and I am pretty sure in most if not all other countries. Trademark protection is specific to a purpose or area. If you are writing an SF novel which contains an artificial being, ...


1

You need a written contract Lawyers draft them. You need a contact lawyer versed in Australian commercial and copyright law and the law of the country of the other party.


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 ...


1

This is going to depend a good deal on there exact nature of the clips being reused. it will also depend, at least somewhat, on what country or countries the various parties are in. General Principle The general principle is that a peerson's post on social media is protected by copyright, just as all original works are. It is a copyright infringement to ...


1

It's almost certainly going to be a violation of the YouTube Terms of Service, paragraph 5(B): Content is provided to you AS IS. You may access Content for your information and personal use solely as intended through the provided functionality of the Service and as permitted under these Terms of Service. You shall not download any Content unless you see a ...


1

The TOS is pretty clear: it says "Don't do that", even if it doesn't mention the specific method. Whether or not you use a mic or the internal-copy method, you are making a copy, and it says "You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior ...


1

It is likely an infringement of copyright whether or not you monetize, unless it falls under fair use. Simply responding to the DMCA notice by taking down the video will NOT protect you from a lawsuit (the DMCA limits YouTube's liability, not yours), although it might limit the damages because your video won't be up as long. (But statutory damages are ...


1

Based on the description, it does not appear that there are any problems of copyright infringement. You are free to (indeed expected to) provide citations of factual and theoretical sources; you are free to use the ideas and facts reported or expressed in those works. The title of a book, year of publication, authors name and all the other things that go ...


1

It's all about the ratio of impact level / easiness to take them down. In other words, worthiness of bothering. A mobile app will have a bigger impact and is much easier to throw out of the Playstore compared to websites which will have smaller audiences and are more difficult to take off the web. If Youtube learns that any particular website offering ...


1

I have spent some time reviewing content related to this topic, and will make an attempt at answering my own question in a rigorous manner such that it may benefit other users. Note: Some relevant links were omitted from this post due to stackexchange restrictions on new-users. Short-answer: Fair-use and the various forms of illegally obtaining/modifying ...


1

There are two senses in which "content" acquisition could be legal / illegal. One regards the act of copying from a source, and the other regards the legality of accessing that source. Copyright law does not distinguish between making an unauthorized copy from a DVD that you own, as opposed to one that you stole. There is a practical difference between ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible