Reading about copyright laws and the concept of fair use in chapter 13 gave me more insight into a topic I was already somewhat familiar with. I knew a little bit about fair use laws because of the time I spend on YouTube, but learning more about them helped contextualize this modern example a little more. For example, I knew copyrighted material could be used in certain contexts like education and criticism, but I wasn't aware of the various court precedents that refined this definition over time. I also didn't know about some of the more nuanced elements of these laws, such as how some copyrighted material "invites" more criticism than others.
Simply put, the concept of fair use is defined as using a copyrighted work "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news, reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research." (Tedford & Herbeck, 366) This law (the Copyright Act of 1976) essentially protects people from legal ramifications for appropriating copyrighted content so long as they can provide legal justification for doing so. For example, professional critics in the movie and music industry are protected under these laws if they choose to use copyrighted material in their reviews to clearly convey their point.
This chapter of our book closely ties into a specific case study that I followed for a few months before it was finally resolved earlier this year in August. The incident surrounded two parties: YouTubers Ethan and Hila Klein (their channel being h3h3Productions) and Matt Hoss (his channel being MattHossZone). The controversy started when the Kleins uploaded a video that was critical of a different video put out by Hoss. Although the video appeared to clearly constitute a fair usage of the copyrighted material, Hoss decided to sue the Kleins on the grounds that they reproduced "virtually all of the work" as "nothing more than a prop" in their comedy routine. However, a New York district judge later decided to throw out this claim, writing "Any review of the Klein video leaves no doubt that it constitutes critical commentary of the Hoss video." I believe this case is important because it sets a crucial precedent for critical fair use in an era where YouTube is becoming a prominent source of news, entertainment, and critical commentary surrounding a diverse set of issues. No such precedent existed in a manner this specific before now, and it will be a valuable litmus test for what creators can attempt to sue over.
Sources:
Foxx, Chris. “YouTube Stars Win Fair Use Legal Battle.” BBC News, BBC, 24 Aug. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/technology-41043209.
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed., Strata Publishing, Inc., 2017.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Hosseinzadeh v. Klein. 23 Aug. 2017. Court Listner.
Simply put, the concept of fair use is defined as using a copyrighted work "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news, reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research." (Tedford & Herbeck, 366) This law (the Copyright Act of 1976) essentially protects people from legal ramifications for appropriating copyrighted content so long as they can provide legal justification for doing so. For example, professional critics in the movie and music industry are protected under these laws if they choose to use copyrighted material in their reviews to clearly convey their point.
This chapter of our book closely ties into a specific case study that I followed for a few months before it was finally resolved earlier this year in August. The incident surrounded two parties: YouTubers Ethan and Hila Klein (their channel being h3h3Productions) and Matt Hoss (his channel being MattHossZone). The controversy started when the Kleins uploaded a video that was critical of a different video put out by Hoss. Although the video appeared to clearly constitute a fair usage of the copyrighted material, Hoss decided to sue the Kleins on the grounds that they reproduced "virtually all of the work" as "nothing more than a prop" in their comedy routine. However, a New York district judge later decided to throw out this claim, writing "Any review of the Klein video leaves no doubt that it constitutes critical commentary of the Hoss video." I believe this case is important because it sets a crucial precedent for critical fair use in an era where YouTube is becoming a prominent source of news, entertainment, and critical commentary surrounding a diverse set of issues. No such precedent existed in a manner this specific before now, and it will be a valuable litmus test for what creators can attempt to sue over.
Sources:
Foxx, Chris. “YouTube Stars Win Fair Use Legal Battle.” BBC News, BBC, 24 Aug. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/technology-41043209.
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States. 8th ed., Strata Publishing, Inc., 2017.
United States District Court, Southern District of New York. Hosseinzadeh v. Klein. 23 Aug. 2017. Court Listner.
I thought your post was interesting. I also followed the case on h3h3 productions. I agree with the final outcome of the case. It was clear to me from the beginning that the Klein's were protected by fair use. To me it seemed like Hoss was upset that they made a video at his expense not really copy right infringement. I thought it was great that the Klein's took a stand for fair use laws on YouTube. It was beneficial to content creators on the platform. What I did find interesting about this case that you didn't touch on was the financial burden that the Klein's endured because of this. They set up a go fund me that raised a significant amount of money and mentioned they still had to pay a lot out of pocket to defend themselves. When I was researching fair use I read a lot of creators cannot afford to fight cases like this one. To me, it was exciting to see Ethan and Hila Klein proceed through the legal process with this case.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn my blog post for this week, I too discussed the idea of fair use in creating content for YouTube. My post revolved around the gaming section of YouTube though, while yours seem to focus on reaction videos. In both scenarios, the question that arises is whether commentary on copyrighted materials constitutes fair use. As you mention in your post, Hoss’s claim that the Kleins infringed upon his work was rejected by a New York district judge. Since this appears to be the first case involving copyright and fair use of YouTube creator content, I agree with your assessment that this ruling sets a significant precedent, especially when YouTube is developing as a prominent platform for entertainment, commentary, and expression. However, we should remember that this was a legal battle between two YouTube content creators. This ruling would probably not be handed down so easily if the case was between a YouTube creator and a large media corporation, such as Comcast, Time Warner, or Disney.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapter 13 of our textbook, one of the major court cases discussed was Viacom International v. YouTube. In this lawsuit, Viacom attempted to sue YouTube for copyright infringement because some of their material was repeatedly being reposted on YouTube’s site. The legal proceedings were dragged on for over 7 years until Google (which had purchased YouTube) reached an out of court settlement with Viacom. Nowadays, YouTube has systems in place, such as “Content ID,” to better identify and remove copyrighted material (Tedford and Herbeck 391-392). Since few other copyright cases against YouTube have arisen in the past few years (as far as I am aware of), one can infer that these systems such as “Content ID” are effective in preventing copyright infringement. However, there is a drawback—since Viacom International v. YouTube was settled out of court, no legal precedent was established concerning copyright infringement of material owned by a large media company on YouTube.
In some cases, it is obvious when “brazen” copyright infringement occurs, but many other times the situation isn’t so clear. Some of these situations include reaction videos and gaming videos, as mentioned above, as well as movie reviews, comedy/skit videos, and possibly even how-to videos. Almost every video has the potential to infringe on someone else’s copyright. YouTube’s administration also seems to recognize this fact, for in their fair use policy, it is directly stated that, “There is actually no silver bullet that will guarantee you are protected by fair use when you use copyrighted material you don’t own.” (“Fair Use Guidelines”). The policy also describes the four factors of fair use as well some common myths regarding fair use. Since the use of copyrighted material can vary greatly from video to video, I agree with how YouTube has shaped its fair use policy. Instead of writing iron-clad rules stating exactly what is deemed as fair use and what isn’t, the company gives guidelines and tips that will help its creators avoid copyright infringement. Hopefully, this policy will minimize the number of cases involving copyright infringement on YouTube, such as Viacom International v. YouTube and Hosseinvadeh v. Klein, so that those who create YouTube videos can continue to do so.
Sources:
Tedford, Thomas L., and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the Unites States. 8th ed. Strata Publishing, INC., 2017.
“Fair Use Guidelines.” YouTube, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/copyright/fair-use/#yt-copyright-protection Accessed 29 Nov. 2017.