I am going to say yes because it is like you say the creator is changing the original so it is not the same word for word tune for tune note by note(my opinion )
they do, you just have to know how to word your response to the dmca. All publicly accessible media is available for fair use in their entirety if you know how to answer back to their threats.
sad part is, until you have nothing to lose and are willing to snap back. most companies will walk right over you, knowing you don't know that they are wrong in what they are doing.
What legal rights does Facebook have to ask and keep my 3 forms of identification? Facebook is telling me to have access to my account that I need to provide my driver's license, passport and a credit card statement.. 🤔 I feel that I'm being targeted because of my beliefs and being a conservative.
RUclips is targeting conservative beliefs and freedom of speech as dangerous terrorists acts.., but if a channel is encouraging rioting, looting, and pushing socialism it counts as safe friendly content.
There is a fun little bit about twitch that pertains to users such as myself, that existed on the platform before the platform name change. the original EULA that was agreed upon was a legal bypass. stating that Justin.tv (twitch) takes no responsibility for content produced by creator's channels and that any person(s) or companies that wish to seek legal actions in accordance with these productions, it falls to the copyright holder to research the creator's personal information and that Justin.tv(twitch) shall not violate it's users rights of private information and will not supply such information to any outside sources. This wonderful bit has protected me throughout the years (13 years of streaming) and has actually brought up some rather fun legal battles where-in I didn't even have a lawyer present. I looked to the judge and the filing agency and stated that all media used was either privately purchased (protected under the same legislation that allows you to play music while driving with your windows open) or that it is easily and readily accessible content provided via the internet. the same goes for when I DJ via livestream. I'm paying for a broadcaster's liscense, and paying for access to a music library, if said library has copyrighted content and I broadcast it through a livestream, there is no legal recourse they can take against myself as the license and access are from another provider and I have a legally binding framework of affirmation that the content is available for use. All of which is protected thanks to a 2016 lawsuit where sony went after 15 popular streamers for playing a video game without a copyright release agreement ($50,000 value each). The judge sided with the streamers that so long as they came into possession of the copyrighted content through lawful means (purchase, donations, etc) that they have the right to broadcast their gameplay of such content. The wonderful thing of this judgement was the wording, in it the judge didn't refer to the games as games, he referred to them as media, and in his final judgement he used the term media. There in, When it comes to all media (games, music, movies, etc), so long as you came across it without pirating/hacking it. it's considered public domain. Oh, and as for the bit of fun. Since most of these companies would use 3rd parties to find my personal information, I was able to file stalking with malicious intent against them. So long as I don't hire anyone to handle my company (editing, streaming, production, etc) I'm still considered a private citizen working for myself. and still protected from stalking. as for the malicious intent, I had to explain it to a judge so I'll explain it here, they were looking me up with the sole intent of causing physical, psychological, or financial harm to myself. (taking down my channel, blackening my name, or fining me). As the judges have said every time I enter a courtroom, "you play hardball, and you're good at it" with the judge presiding over my divorce saying "I don't understand why you aren't a lawyer..."
You know Ian, I never use copyrighted music in my Twitch streams. All the gameplay I have permission from the game publishers with their general fan content policy granted to all streamers. The overlays I use in the live streams do contain copyrighted images from Google. but I edit these images in photoshop to make an overlay for my live stream. I do believe that is a fair use. Because I’m taking someone else’s art and transforming that art into my own. So in all honesty this doesn’t change my game plan because I have been following the rules/law
Best thing to do now is just separate your music from the VOD tracks in OBS. All the copyright strikes that happened recently were from clips and VODs so that should save a lot of grief.
*What really needs to happen is Some Kind Of Serious Compromise. Not Everybody has that Golden Voice. Not Everybody is Entertaining. Not Everybody likes watching commentary. All Online Gamers Bring Millions of dollars to developers & THEY ARE VERY UNGRATEFUL, NOW CALLING GAMERS FELONS!!! Some gamers make alot of money, some dont. Its like calling an employee a felon when theyre bringing the company money.* *THEY ARE TRYING TO INCARCERATE THEIR EMPLOYEE, WHEN ALL THE EMPLOYEE WANTS TO DO IS WORK FOR THEM!!* *Maybe they could make some kind of payment play for all gamers THAT DONT WANT OR CANT USE COMMENTARY, like a payment plan, like when you pay for online VS/FIGHTING Games, services for $20-$60 a year.?* *What I would really like to see is a boycott to all the gaming industry. No one buys no consoles... No games... No memory cards - NO NOTHING!!! THEN THEYLL KNOW HOW IT FEELS TO BE BETRAYED BY SOMEONE THAT WAS EXTREMELY LOYAL TO THEM!!* *But then some gaming developers might shut down, Then we all lose. Probly not a good idea... ?*
i personally feel if you pay for a subscription to a music service such as spotify or amazon music, you should be allowed to play any music from that platform as you are paying for said music and not acquiring it illegally AS LONG as you have the song name and artist name on your stream to give credit to the creator. and that should go for all art forms. you should be required to give credit to the artist when using any art form but it should be allowed to be used on stream.
I've really had it with any given 'party' claiming something as 'not allowed' or illegal and any given other 'party' claiming the same thing as 'allowed' or legal - and - vice versa. IT IS WHAT IT IS 'Opinions' can be wrong and too many insist theirs is right. There's a line in Salt-N-Pepa's "None Of Your Business" that says... "Opinions are like @$$holes and everybody's got one"
Ian you're doing a lot of good here, do you need anyone to help with PDF's or design stuff, like if you could compile a list of information we could make a cheat sheet in some way.
@@jordanolson11 Well, I have been following copyright law for 20 years since Napster appeared. I am very passionate about the subject and have a deep desire to connect content creators with factually correct information. I am not a lawyer or law student however this has always been important to me as I am a musician. If there is anything that I can do I will do it. I have more than enough time on my hands and want to make a difference.
What about companies like Nintendo that usually strike down videos and channels showing gameplay of their games? Is it possible to use the "fair use" card to appeal these strikes, or if a copyright owner wants the content removed there is nothing to do about it?
WOW! And first off, thanks for this info, it definitely helps. Second, if there's anyone who can help me with this DMCA issue, you might be able to. I've actually reached out to Twitch and Square Enix via trouble tickets to see if their legal teams can find a way to fix this issue. The question is how would we petition or see that the US Copyright Office (or whoever is in charge of that) can write an exception in the DMCA and copyright laws for people using in-game music/audio for the purpose of streaming/broadcasting it (the games including the inherent music/audio contained in them) on streaming platforms like Twitch and RUclips? I'm curious if you might have any suggestions on how we can change some of these laws and rules which can help benefit both copyright holders and streamers/content creators just trying to share the content for their audiences to enjoy which inherently further promotes said copyrighted content.
Yes, I think mash-ups and mixes should be part of Fair Use, because these can completely transform and/or combine the original works into something very different. Reaction videos should also count as Fair Use if they have a lot of their own commentary / reactions before and after (and maybe during) the copyrighted content which may be used.
There is a reason they are nicknamed “copyright trolls”. At the end of the day record label execs and lawyers get rich while artists see nothing but the fans of their music punished.
In my country, Germany, exists the popular old-wives'-tale of tolerance by law when a copyrighted song plays for less than 10 seconds. I suppose the idea spread, because many TV-shows like to do these short track-demos for pure reference - and consumers easily forget, that an official television-broadcaster can't pick content in a happy-go-lucky manner. Though demonstrating a few seconds of a music-piece should count as Fair Use - in my opinion - , I would never test my luck with famous songs played on the radio (or official game-soundtracks made by Nintendo).
Would it be considered "fair use" to use an image of inspector gadget that I animate to fly around my screen as an alert for twitch? I would also be adding my own sounds effects to the animated image as apart of the alert. Thanks 😁
What about youtubers telling people to use copyrighted music while the streaming is on but never on the vod after the stream ends and twitch doesnt ban?
Awesome breakdown of what is and isn't okay for fair use, thank you! Curious question, would quilt/sewing patterns be considered fair use in videos and streams if they're being used to teach? I know teaching is covered in fair use, but the patterns themselves are copyrighted.
So let's say we are watching an anime for reaction content. If we are providing commentary over the copyrighted material does that make it fair use in this case?
If the only issue with gameplay is that it's not transformative and the person is not making it their own then wouldn't be easy solution to that just be to always be talking and engaging with the viewers? The specific course of gameplay that you do is always going to be your own because you are the one doing it it's not a pre-programmed action that's in the game they didn't make your playstyle they didn't custom animate what you're doing specifically. Taken as a whole it's not just gameplay footage, its running commentary and engagement. Also if it's against the rules to stream gameplay footage without some form of commentary or other transformative element is it also illegal for me to have friends over at my house and they see me playing a game that they didn't buy? It's perfectly reasonable that I could lend someone a video game. It's perfectly reasonable that I could lend 100 people a video game. If that's not against the rules then what's the problem. You buy a video game as a piece of interactive media and the people watching the stream or not engaging with it as interactive media. They don't get the experience of actually playing the game they just get to watch me do it. I think if pressed enough there really isn't much illegal about it. I'm not distributing the game to people for free. If they choose to consume the game in a way where they only want to see or know the story and don't actually mind not playing at themselves then why do we not copyright strike wikipedia for having story summaries of the games? It's the exact same principle! By extension every piece of music featured in the game was put there through licensing and requires extra effort to be played more than just putting in a disk solely dedicated to that music. If a game that I am playing has a really popular song featured in it and I play it with a group of 10 or 20 or even 100 friends that's perfectly fine because I'm not charging them to be there so it's not like I'm making money off of somebody else's media. I think really modern copyright laws are just not built to handle any kind of live media sharing. Every rule is outdated. If gaming companies wanted people to buy the game and play it themselves otherwise they don't get to see or know anything about it then they are going to have to take down all of the story summaries and screenshots that exist on the Internet as well because it's all the exact same thing. In fact those things are even less transformative because they are just direct information without any kind of secondary service to draw the audience (a commentary or something extra).
We are not reinventing the wheel. We are broadcasting digitally. Here is a law that is over 40 years old that should apply. Blanket Licence The blanket license has long been recognized as the most efficient and convenient way of clearing copyrights in the United States. It would be time consuming and expensive for you to locate, contact and negotiate with all copyright holders prior to the performance of each song you plan to play. The U.S. Supreme Court summarized the virtues of the blanket license in CBS v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 441 U.S. 1 (1979) as follows: "... the blanket license developed ... out of the practical situation in the marketplace: thousands of users, thousands of copyright owners and millions of compositions. Most users want unplanned, rapid and indemnified access to any and all of the repertory of compositions and the owners want a reliable method of collecting for the use of their copyrights... "A middleman with a blanket license was an obvious necessity if the thousands of individual negotiations, a virtual impossibility were to be avoided. Also, ...(individual licenses would pose) a difficult and expensive reporting problem for the user and policing task for the copyright owner. Historically, the market for public performance rights organized itself largely around the single-fee blanket license, which gave unlimited access to the repertory and reliable protection against infringement."
I get it I do. Thanks for the very valuable information. But it feels like playing games with handcuffs thinking about these rules while trying to enjoy gaming lol. It is so frustrating. Pay for Spotify to have the music but cant play Spotify while I am in a stream and from the looks of it I cant even just play silently, I have to do commentary the whole time :( oh well casual streaming will prob die for me. Wish music folks would just pair with twitch or something. Or artist sign up .. this makes me sad lol.
Question about the music.. what if I do like a parody or a cover? let's say I want to do a Billy Joel song and I record my voice singing the song and performing it maybe even change the lyrics, would that be fair use?
Hi Ian, If i watch a tv show with friends and family via zoom where I share my screen to the watch video is that fair use if we are commenting throughout the show.
around 8:30 I wonder, to protect this person's stream and identity and all that would you consider in the future when using examples of this, not showing the information of the streamer so they can get targeted? I'm almost positive people would do this regardless being the internet where you can submit false claims
Hi, already subscribed to your channel because of your great content. But I do have a question however, Is Twitch clips under fair use? Because Im just using a small portion of the whole stream, and I also gave credit to the streamer.
I imagine you have other fair use videos on here, but I have a question do you think reaction videos could fall under fair use, I understand most people don't do them right cause they show normally the whole video they are reacting to not just the points when they have reactions. Oh wow you made a small point about reactions on here too but heats the case when it comes to RUclips over twitch.
Great question! YT has admitted on air that they approve of REACTION videos -- however, as you rightly point out, they have to be done correctly (short clip, comment directly about clip). However, reaction is not a category of Fair Use currently recognized by most countries and US law (see Title 17 US Code 107). So, it is risky BUT it is currently the second most highly-watched category of YT videos, so you've been informed!
There really is a fair use of music that can happen on Twitch or RUclips, without permission of the copyright owner, but such fair use conditions hardly ever happen. For a "how to have fair use of music" example, see a RUclips video critique of the live performance by Hong Kong pop music singer Jane Zhang of the impossible song from the movie "The 5th Element". That critique starts at ruclips.net/video/97C1v9Clh_o/видео.htmlm10s in the RUclips video "Voice Teacher Reaction to Jane Zhang - Diva Dance LIVE from the 5th Element". They say that it took Jane Zhang only 3 months or so to learn to step out of the pop music genre to a sufficient degree to be able to sing that song at a professional level with a live symphony orchestra. I foresee a future where some e-girl or gamer girl occasionally gets pre-approval Twitch or RUclips for doing music reaction streams or music reaction videos in simultaneous collaboration with one or two or three music experts. I predict that as copyright law gets more severe, spontaneous e-girl only or gamer girl only reactions at the request of chat room members and subscribers will decrease, and pre-approved music reaction events in conjunction with music experts will increase. This trend will work against small subscriber count RUclipsrs such as some 15 year old operating out of his or her parents basement, since almost no music experts will work for just pocket change. Millionaire RUclipsrs though can hire for an evening or two a whole panel of experts sufficiently qualified to be likely to obtain Twitch or RUclips pre-approval for a music critique event.
@@iancorzine , I am glad that my comment could help you out in restoring some freedom to the Internet. Copyright law is in 2 different ways in the process of taking freedom from the Internet during the first quarter of the 21st Century. 1. As described by 7 million subscriber count RUclips member penguinz0 in the 3 million view count December 2020 video "Going to Jail for DMCA Strike", receiving a Twitch or RUclips copyright complaint on future streams or videos that result in a monetary gain could, especially in America, result in up to a $30,000 fine per valid copyright complaint, and up to 3 to 10 years in prison per valid copyright complaint. 2. Up to a copyright year of 1922, the "little guy" who does not have resources to do copyright research on a specific copyright work can with reasonable safety operate under what amounts to a 100 year rule. Now in the year 2021, if you play some old Thomas Edison type of phonograph record from the year 1921 or earlier, even if the heirs of that phonograph singer of long ago complain to RUclips, as long as you can prove that that phonograph record was from the year 1921 or earlier, you are not getting sent to prison for 3 to 10 years in America for play of that phonograph on RUclips, and in addition RUclips will not use copyright violation ban your video from view in most countries. However, for copyrights that happened in the year 1923 or later, the little guy who does not have the resources do research on a particular copyright work should be operating on a roughly 150 year rule. If you play a phonograph from the year 1923 and you cannot do the research on that particular phonograph record, you should wait until at least 150 years after the year 1923, the year 2073 to do so, or else there is a dangerously high chance that you could get sent to prison in America for 3 to 10 years for the play of that long ago phonograph record from the year 1923. My belief is that too much of history is already banned from view due to what amounts to a 100 year copyright rule and a 150 year copyright rule. In theory one could receive a RUclips copyright ban for proving photographicly that the Holocaust, the sending of Jews in Nazi Germany to death camps in World War 2 during the 1940s, was not just a myth. The ban for multiple copyright violation would on the grounds that copyright complained photographs from the 1940s were from less than 150 years ago, meaning that the photographs would therefore be under a reasonable suspicion of truly still being under copyright. Now in America in early 2021, unless Congress in America changes its mind by roughly mid-February of 2021, showing a historical photograph on a future RUclips video of a Jew being put on a railway wagon while in transit to a Nazi German World War 2 death camp could in theory get the RUclipsr involved with posting such photography 3 to 10 years in prison, if one or more resulting RUclips videos collectively make even $0.01 of income. The combination of what amounts to a 150 year copyright rule with the new felony copyright violation law in America prevents too much of historical interest from being known about in a widespread manner. For copyright length, I propose 48 years. Publishers have tricks for extending copyright by a number of months, so in practice a 50 year rule would be in effect. A NASA astronaut from the time of the Moon landing would, if a nominally 48 year rule is instituted, be free to post a RUclips video of his Moon exploits without worry of being sent to prison for 3 to 10 years, and without worry of his RUclips video being taken down for receiving a copyright complaint based on showing contemporaneous sights or sounds on the Moon or on Earth from the time that the Moon landings happened some 50 years ago, around the year 1970.
Is it concidered copywrite if you sing a popular song but don't use any other music. So if someone sings acapella would they be against the copywrite law?
Hi, this is a great question. I would love to help out and answer any questions you may have! I have a LIVE Q&A show this Saturday. You can drop your questions and concerns on my LIVE show and TUNE IN. Kindly check this link to get a notification. facebook.com/yoursocialmedialawyer/posts/1231061260678010
DJ sets and mashups should be fair use. Up until DMCA, it took a physical police officer to write a citation. With DMCA, we are allowing AI to computer generate millions of citations at once. I feel that we need to outlaw machines from governing us before its too late. DMCA gives AI an advantage in solving crimes and complex futuristic problems, but it shouldn't step in the way of modern day culture creators. I have been doing a DJ set on twitch and will be using their "appeal" feature and claim fair use. Then maybe it will at least force a physical "cop" of some sort to review each claim IRL. I recommend more DJ's do this in their sets to slow down and clutter the entire system until its impossible to govern.
i play gta then background have a popular music while you on stream then it cant be silent or turnoff like in a cloth store, yet still get copyright. does it fair?
What do you do when the Toutube's content ID bot identifies music from one of your gameplay streams, and associates it back to a channel that used that same music for a video, that legally has absolutely no rights to that song in question, yet RUclips believes they do?
@@iancorzine the channel that RUclips believes has the rights to the song just happened to use the same song from the game I was streaming (Silent Hill) so I'm not sure how RUclips's content ID system is supposed to be foolproof when it's giving rights to another channel that clearly also doesn't own the music in question.
What if you are commenting on a RUclips video while streaming? Concerned if CopyRight music comes up in the videos without me knowing. How much is too much?
Watching this since I'm working on Let's plays on RUclips myself since I'm curious if this would be helpful since how this mess also applies to RUclips.
I have a question : I would like to stream and comment UFC fights, tennis matches, and Football (soccer) games. Obviously, not showing them live, but using either highlights or replays that are available for free on the official leagues and companies' RUclips channels. Is that possible? Thanks for your work.
What if you wanted to play famous music for background music like a song for Billie eylish idk if i said it right and are you able to play that music ?
Hi, this is a great question. I would love to help out and answer any questions you may have! I have a LIVE Q&A show this Saturday. You can drop your questions and concerns on my LIVE show and TUNE IN. Kindly check this link to get a notification. facebook.com/yoursocialmedialawyer/posts/1231061260678010
Hi, this is a great question. I would love to help out and answer any questions you may have! I have a LIVE Q&A show this Saturday. You can drop your questions and concerns on my LIVE show and TUNE IN.Kindly check this link to get a notification. facebook.com/yoursocialmedialawyer/posts/1231061260678010
What if I used a 7 min portion of a horror/action movie but dubbed it in a funny way and not even related to the story? Hoping for your response. Thank you.
Ok but the video didn't answer the question 90% of twitch streamers want to know. What about a short 3 or 4 second music klip that followers can trigger during a stream
Can you get a copyright claim or strike on a youtube thumbnail? Like using images from google and making a thumbnail yourself..like logos and stuff would that count as fair use
but what about Rhythm Games like Konami's old DanceDanceRevolution? it's a game i know and i'm very concerned about because tha gameplay is tha music and there's no way of controlling tha copyright on music/rhythm games like DanceDanceRevolution sadly :'( and u forgot to talk about Rhythm Games
Hi, this is a great question. I would love to help out and answer any questions you may have! I have a LIVE Q&A show this Saturday. You can drop your questions and concerns on my LIVE show and TUNE IN.Kindly check this link to get a notification. facebook.com/yoursocialmedialawyer/posts/1231061260678010
Lmao, I am confused again on changing one art into another art and now not being transformative when do simply samplings creating something.. CONFUSION. I know sound garden v. rolling stones, bowie/green v. Vanilla ice... all the greedy Marvin gaye trust suits...but no offense they sound similar but really different new songs only so many chords.
12:24 Should 🎸MUSIC 🎹 mixes, re-mixes, or mashups count as FAIR USE?
I am going to say yes because it is like you say the creator is changing the original so it is not the same word for word tune for tune note by note(my opinion )
they do, you just have to know how to word your response to the dmca. All publicly accessible media is available for fair use in their entirety if you know how to answer back to their threats.
sad part is, until you have nothing to lose and are willing to snap back. most companies will walk right over you, knowing you don't know that they are wrong in what they are doing.
What legal rights does Facebook have to ask and keep my 3 forms of identification? Facebook is telling me to have access to my account that I need to provide my driver's license, passport and a credit card statement.. 🤔 I feel that I'm being targeted because of my beliefs and being a conservative.
RUclips is targeting conservative beliefs and freedom of speech as dangerous terrorists acts.., but if a channel is encouraging rioting, looting, and pushing socialism it counts as safe friendly content.
There is a fun little bit about twitch that pertains to users such as myself, that existed on the platform before the platform name change. the original EULA that was agreed upon was a legal bypass. stating that Justin.tv (twitch) takes no responsibility for content produced by creator's channels and that any person(s) or companies that wish to seek legal actions in accordance with these productions, it falls to the copyright holder to research the creator's personal information and that Justin.tv(twitch) shall not violate it's users rights of private information and will not supply such information to any outside sources.
This wonderful bit has protected me throughout the years (13 years of streaming) and has actually brought up some rather fun legal battles where-in I didn't even have a lawyer present. I looked to the judge and the filing agency and stated that all media used was either privately purchased (protected under the same legislation that allows you to play music while driving with your windows open) or that it is easily and readily accessible content provided via the internet. the same goes for when I DJ via livestream. I'm paying for a broadcaster's liscense, and paying for access to a music library, if said library has copyrighted content and I broadcast it through a livestream, there is no legal recourse they can take against myself as the license and access are from another provider and I have a legally binding framework of affirmation that the content is available for use.
All of which is protected thanks to a 2016 lawsuit where sony went after 15 popular streamers for playing a video game without a copyright release agreement ($50,000 value each). The judge sided with the streamers that so long as they came into possession of the copyrighted content through lawful means (purchase, donations, etc) that they have the right to broadcast their gameplay of such content. The wonderful thing of this judgement was the wording, in it the judge didn't refer to the games as games, he referred to them as media, and in his final judgement he used the term media. There in, When it comes to all media (games, music, movies, etc), so long as you came across it without pirating/hacking it. it's considered public domain.
Oh, and as for the bit of fun. Since most of these companies would use 3rd parties to find my personal information, I was able to file stalking with malicious intent against them. So long as I don't hire anyone to handle my company (editing, streaming, production, etc) I'm still considered a private citizen working for myself. and still protected from stalking. as for the malicious intent, I had to explain it to a judge so I'll explain it here, they were looking me up with the sole intent of causing physical, psychological, or financial harm to myself. (taking down my channel, blackening my name, or fining me). As the judges have said every time I enter a courtroom, "you play hardball, and you're good at it" with the judge presiding over my divorce saying "I don't understand why you aren't a lawyer..."
Thank you for this concise and articulate comment. It is invaluable information.
You know Ian, I never use copyrighted music in my Twitch streams. All the gameplay I have permission from the game publishers with their general fan content policy granted to all streamers. The overlays I use in the live streams do contain copyrighted images from Google. but I edit these images in photoshop to make an overlay for my live stream. I do believe that is a fair use. Because I’m taking someone else’s art and transforming that art into my own. So in all honesty this doesn’t change my game plan because I have been following the rules/law
If these images do not allow to use them for ur own content (Even transformed) then the images u use are a copyright strike.
Absolutely, the way I play a song on the drums is significantly different. The key is in the commentary.
Best thing to do now is just separate your music from the VOD tracks in OBS. All the copyright strikes that happened recently were from clips and VODs so that should save a lot of grief.
how do we do that?
*What really needs to happen is Some Kind Of Serious Compromise. Not Everybody has that Golden Voice. Not Everybody is Entertaining. Not Everybody likes watching commentary. All Online Gamers Bring Millions of dollars to developers & THEY ARE VERY UNGRATEFUL, NOW CALLING GAMERS FELONS!!! Some gamers make alot of money, some dont. Its like calling an employee a felon when theyre bringing the company money.*
*THEY ARE TRYING TO INCARCERATE THEIR EMPLOYEE, WHEN ALL THE EMPLOYEE WANTS TO DO IS WORK FOR THEM!!*
*Maybe they could make some kind of payment play for all gamers THAT DONT WANT OR CANT USE COMMENTARY, like a payment plan, like when you pay for online VS/FIGHTING Games, services for $20-$60 a year.?*
*What I would really like to see is a boycott to all the gaming industry. No one buys no consoles... No games... No memory cards - NO NOTHING!!! THEN THEYLL KNOW HOW IT FEELS TO BE BETRAYED BY SOMEONE THAT WAS EXTREMELY LOYAL TO THEM!!*
*But then some gaming developers might shut down, Then we all lose. Probly not a good idea... ?*
If we lose out on a company that shuts down, it is worth it! Progress can suck but we need it
i personally feel if you pay for a subscription to a music service such as spotify or amazon music, you should be allowed to play any music from that platform as you are paying for said music and not acquiring it illegally AS LONG as you have the song name and artist name on your stream to give credit to the creator. and that should go for all art forms. you should be required to give credit to the artist when using any art form but it should be allowed to be used on stream.
I've really had it with any given 'party' claiming something as 'not allowed' or illegal and any given other 'party' claiming the same thing as 'allowed' or legal - and - vice versa.
IT IS WHAT IT IS
'Opinions' can be wrong and too many insist theirs is right.
There's a line in Salt-N-Pepa's "None Of Your Business" that says...
"Opinions are like @$$holes and everybody's got one"
Salt-n-Pepper never let me down.
I as a DJ really do hope things make it so I can mix live.
Ian you're doing a lot of good here, do you need anyone to help with PDF's or design stuff, like if you could compile a list of information we could make a cheat sheet in some way.
Hey Jordan. Thanks so much man. Drop me a DM @iancorzine on IG
I really like this idea and would be very interested in having a cheat sheet and sharing it with streamers.
@@synophlex I added him on insta and he just ignored me and probably just outsourced to fiver.
@@jordanolson11 Well, I have been following copyright law for 20 years since Napster appeared. I am very passionate about the subject and have a deep desire to connect content creators with factually correct information. I am not a lawyer or law student however this has always been important to me as I am a musician. If there is anything that I can do I will do it. I have more than enough time on my hands and want to make a difference.
@@synophlex much respect and love to you man, I know it's hard out there, but I know you can do it.
What about companies like Nintendo that usually strike down videos and channels showing gameplay of their games? Is it possible to use the "fair use" card to appeal these strikes, or if a copyright owner wants the content removed there is nothing to do about it?
WOW! And first off, thanks for this info, it definitely helps. Second, if there's anyone who can help me with this DMCA issue, you might be able to. I've actually reached out to Twitch and Square Enix via trouble tickets to see if their legal teams can find a way to fix this issue. The question is how would we petition or see that the US Copyright Office (or whoever is in charge of that) can write an exception in the DMCA and copyright laws for people using in-game music/audio for the purpose of streaming/broadcasting it (the games including the inherent music/audio contained in them) on streaming platforms like Twitch and RUclips? I'm curious if you might have any suggestions on how we can change some of these laws and rules which can help benefit both copyright holders and streamers/content creators just trying to share the content for their audiences to enjoy which inherently further promotes said copyrighted content.
Yes, I think mash-ups and mixes should be part of Fair Use, because these can completely transform and/or combine the original works into something very different. Reaction videos should also count as Fair Use if they have a lot of their own commentary / reactions before and after (and maybe during) the copyrighted content which may be used.
There is a reason they are nicknamed “copyright trolls”. At the end of the day record label execs and lawyers get rich while artists see nothing but the fans of their music punished.
In my country, Germany, exists the popular old-wives'-tale of tolerance by law when a copyrighted song plays for less than 10 seconds.
I suppose the idea spread, because many TV-shows like to do these short track-demos for pure reference - and consumers easily forget, that an official television-broadcaster can't pick content in a happy-go-lucky manner.
Though demonstrating a few seconds of a music-piece should count as Fair Use - in my opinion - , I would never test my luck with famous songs played on the radio (or official game-soundtracks made by Nintendo).
I have a question, when is it ok to use company brands in your twitch stream and when is it not?
Would it be considered "fair use" to use an image of inspector gadget that I animate to fly around my screen as an alert for twitch? I would also be adding my own sounds effects to the animated image as apart of the alert. Thanks 😁
What about youtubers telling people to use copyrighted music while the streaming is on but never on the vod after the stream ends and twitch doesnt ban?
how on earth this video doesnt have more views
What about if you create and use an alert that involves 15 seconds of music?
Awesome breakdown of what is and isn't okay for fair use, thank you! Curious question, would quilt/sewing patterns be considered fair use in videos and streams if they're being used to teach? I know teaching is covered in fair use, but the patterns themselves are copyrighted.
So let's say we are watching an anime for reaction content. If we are providing commentary over the copyrighted material does that make it fair use in this case?
If the only issue with gameplay is that it's not transformative and the person is not making it their own then wouldn't be easy solution to that just be to always be talking and engaging with the viewers? The specific course of gameplay that you do is always going to be your own because you are the one doing it it's not a pre-programmed action that's in the game they didn't make your playstyle they didn't custom animate what you're doing specifically. Taken as a whole it's not just gameplay footage, its running commentary and engagement. Also if it's against the rules to stream gameplay footage without some form of commentary or other transformative element is it also illegal for me to have friends over at my house and they see me playing a game that they didn't buy? It's perfectly reasonable that I could lend someone a video game. It's perfectly reasonable that I could lend 100 people a video game. If that's not against the rules then what's the problem. You buy a video game as a piece of interactive media and the people watching the stream or not engaging with it as interactive media. They don't get the experience of actually playing the game they just get to watch me do it. I think if pressed enough there really isn't much illegal about it. I'm not distributing the game to people for free. If they choose to consume the game in a way where they only want to see or know the story and don't actually mind not playing at themselves then why do we not copyright strike wikipedia for having story summaries of the games? It's the exact same principle! By extension every piece of music featured in the game was put there through licensing and requires extra effort to be played more than just putting in a disk solely dedicated to that music. If a game that I am playing has a really popular song featured in it and I play it with a group of 10 or 20 or even 100 friends that's perfectly fine because I'm not charging them to be there so it's not like I'm making money off of somebody else's media. I think really modern copyright laws are just not built to handle any kind of live media sharing. Every rule is outdated. If gaming companies wanted people to buy the game and play it themselves otherwise they don't get to see or know anything about it then they are going to have to take down all of the story summaries and screenshots that exist on the Internet as well because it's all the exact same thing. In fact those things are even less transformative because they are just direct information without any kind of secondary service to draw the audience (a commentary or something extra).
We are not reinventing the wheel. We are broadcasting digitally. Here is a law that is over 40 years old that should apply.
Blanket Licence
The blanket license has long been recognized as the most efficient and convenient way of clearing copyrights in the United States. It would be time consuming and expensive for you to locate, contact and negotiate with all copyright holders prior to the performance of each song you plan to play.
The U.S. Supreme Court summarized the virtues of the blanket license in CBS v. Broadcast Music, Inc., 441 U.S. 1 (1979) as follows:
"... the blanket license developed ... out of the practical situation in the marketplace: thousands of users, thousands of copyright owners and millions of compositions. Most users want unplanned, rapid and indemnified access to any and all of the repertory of compositions and the owners want a reliable method of collecting for the use of their copyrights...
"A middleman with a blanket license was an obvious necessity if the thousands of individual negotiations, a virtual impossibility were to be avoided. Also, ...(individual licenses would pose) a difficult and expensive reporting problem for the user and policing task for the copyright owner. Historically, the market for public performance rights organized itself largely around the single-fee blanket license, which gave unlimited access to the repertory and reliable protection against infringement."
8:27, What would you say about "Dance Choreography" RUclipsrs and Livestreamers?
Would it also be that no-one has complained/noticed? 🤔
I get it I do. Thanks for the very valuable information. But it feels like playing games with handcuffs thinking about these rules while trying to enjoy gaming lol. It is so frustrating. Pay for Spotify to have the music but cant play Spotify while I am in a stream and from the looks of it I cant even just play silently, I have to do commentary the whole time :( oh well casual streaming will prob die for me. Wish music folks would just pair with twitch or something. Or artist sign up .. this makes me sad lol.
DJ Maseo is a member of Dr La Soul. He probably has the rights to all of this
i'm producing a show and i will have to stream separately audio and video to avoid copyright issues.
@Ian Corzine, what is your take on a voice clip from a movie? For example: Arnold Schwarzenegger saying "GET TO DA CHOPPA!" Etc?
A very helpful video. Thank you.
Question about the music..
what if I do like a parody or a cover? let's say I want to do a Billy Joel song and I record my voice singing the song and performing it maybe even change the lyrics, would that be fair use?
Hi Ian, If i watch a tv show with friends and family via zoom where I share my screen to the watch video is that fair use if we are commenting throughout the show.
Whats up with all these fake girl accounts
I know ... annoying right?
around 8:30 I wonder, to protect this person's stream and identity and all that would you consider in the future when using examples of this, not showing the information of the streamer so they can get targeted? I'm almost positive people would do this regardless being the internet where you can submit false claims
Hi, already subscribed to your channel because of your great content. But I do have a question however, Is Twitch clips under fair use? Because Im just using a small portion of the whole stream, and I also gave credit to the streamer.
Does badly singing a song (with no background music) as a parody, switching up words while keeping the tune count as fair use?
I imagine you have other fair use videos on here, but I have a question do you think reaction videos could fall under fair use, I understand most people don't do them right cause they show normally the whole video they are reacting to not just the points when they have reactions.
Oh wow you made a small point about reactions on here too but heats the case when it comes to RUclips over twitch.
Great question! YT has admitted on air that they approve of REACTION videos -- however, as you rightly point out, they have to be done correctly (short clip, comment directly about clip). However, reaction is not a category of Fair Use currently recognized by most countries and US law (see Title 17 US Code 107). So, it is risky BUT it is currently the second most highly-watched category of YT videos, so you've been informed!
There really is a fair use of music that can happen on Twitch or RUclips, without permission of the copyright owner, but such fair use conditions hardly ever happen.
For a "how to have fair use of music" example, see a RUclips video critique of the live performance by Hong Kong pop music singer Jane Zhang of the impossible song from the movie "The 5th Element". That critique starts at ruclips.net/video/97C1v9Clh_o/видео.htmlm10s in the RUclips video "Voice Teacher Reaction to Jane Zhang - Diva Dance LIVE from the 5th Element". They say that it took Jane Zhang only 3 months or so to learn to step out of the pop music genre to a sufficient degree to be able to sing that song at a professional level with a live symphony orchestra.
I foresee a future where some e-girl or gamer girl occasionally gets pre-approval Twitch or RUclips for doing music reaction streams or music reaction videos in simultaneous collaboration with one or two or three music experts. I predict that as copyright law gets more severe, spontaneous e-girl only or gamer girl only reactions at the request of chat room members and subscribers will decrease, and pre-approved music reaction events in conjunction with music experts will increase. This trend will work against small subscriber count RUclipsrs such as some 15 year old operating out of his or her parents basement, since almost no music experts will work for just pocket change. Millionaire RUclipsrs though can hire for an evening or two a whole panel of experts sufficiently qualified to be likely to obtain Twitch or RUclips pre-approval for a music critique event.
hey Wendy! Thank you so much for sharing this with us! This is really going to help, and I appreciate the time you took with this comment.
@@iancorzine , I am glad that my comment could help you out in restoring some freedom to the Internet.
Copyright law is in 2 different ways in the process of taking freedom from the Internet during the first quarter of the 21st Century.
1. As described by 7 million subscriber count RUclips member penguinz0 in the 3 million view count December 2020 video "Going to Jail for DMCA Strike", receiving a Twitch or RUclips copyright complaint on future streams or videos that result in a monetary gain could, especially in America, result in up to a $30,000 fine per valid copyright complaint, and up to 3 to 10 years in prison per valid copyright complaint.
2. Up to a copyright year of 1922, the "little guy" who does not have resources to do copyright research on a specific copyright work can with reasonable safety operate under what amounts to a 100 year rule. Now in the year 2021, if you play some old Thomas Edison type of phonograph record from the year 1921 or earlier, even if the heirs of that phonograph singer of long ago complain to RUclips, as long as you can prove that that phonograph record was from the year 1921 or earlier, you are not getting sent to prison for 3 to 10 years in America for play of that phonograph on RUclips, and in addition RUclips will not use copyright violation ban your video from view in most countries. However, for copyrights that happened in the year 1923 or later, the little guy who does not have the resources do research on a particular copyright work should be operating on a roughly 150 year rule. If you play a phonograph from the year 1923 and you cannot do the research on that particular phonograph record, you should wait until at least 150 years after the year 1923, the year 2073 to do so, or else there is a dangerously high chance that you could get sent to prison in America for 3 to 10 years for the play of that long ago phonograph record from the year 1923.
My belief is that too much of history is already banned from view due to what amounts to a 100 year copyright rule and a 150 year copyright rule. In theory one could receive a RUclips copyright ban for proving photographicly that the Holocaust, the sending of Jews in Nazi Germany to death camps in World War 2 during the 1940s, was not just a myth. The ban for multiple copyright violation would on the grounds that copyright complained photographs from the 1940s were from less than 150 years ago, meaning that the photographs would therefore be under a reasonable suspicion of truly still being under copyright. Now in America in early 2021, unless Congress in America changes its mind by roughly mid-February of 2021, showing a historical photograph on a future RUclips video of a Jew being put on a railway wagon while in transit to a Nazi German World War 2 death camp could in theory get the RUclipsr involved with posting such photography 3 to 10 years in prison, if one or more resulting RUclips videos collectively make even $0.01 of income. The combination of what amounts to a 150 year copyright rule with the new felony copyright violation law in America prevents too much of historical interest from being known about in a widespread manner.
For copyright length, I propose 48 years. Publishers have tricks for extending copyright by a number of months, so in practice a 50 year rule would be in effect. A NASA astronaut from the time of the Moon landing would, if a nominally 48 year rule is instituted, be free to post a RUclips video of his Moon exploits without worry of being sent to prison for 3 to 10 years, and without worry of his RUclips video being taken down for receiving a copyright complaint based on showing contemporaneous sights or sounds on the Moon or on Earth from the time that the Moon landings happened some 50 years ago, around the year 1970.
Is it concidered copywrite if you sing a popular song but don't use any other music. So if someone sings acapella would they be against the copywrite law?
Hi, this is a great question. I would love to help out and answer any questions you may have! I have a LIVE Q&A show this Saturday.
You can drop your questions and concerns on my LIVE show and TUNE IN.
Kindly check this link to get a notification.
facebook.com/yoursocialmedialawyer/posts/1231061260678010
DJ sets and mashups should be fair use. Up until DMCA, it took a physical police officer to write a citation. With DMCA, we are allowing AI to computer generate millions of citations at once. I feel that we need to outlaw machines from governing us before its too late. DMCA gives AI an advantage in solving crimes and complex futuristic problems, but it shouldn't step in the way of modern day culture creators. I have been doing a DJ set on twitch and will be using their "appeal" feature and claim fair use. Then maybe it will at least force a physical "cop" of some sort to review each claim IRL. I recommend more DJ's do this in their sets to slow down and clutter the entire system until its impossible to govern.
How would this apply to a live sporting event? Say someone wanted to commentate an NFL game on a Sunday on Twitch?
yay, im so ahppy
i play gta then background have a popular music while you on stream then it cant be silent or turnoff like in a cloth store, yet still get copyright. does it fair?
I just look up copyright free music on RUclips is that ok?
What do you do when the Toutube's content ID bot identifies music from one of your gameplay streams, and associates it back to a channel that used that same music for a video, that legally has absolutely no rights to that song in question, yet RUclips believes they do?
Hey MM. How did YT "associate" it?
@@iancorzine the channel that RUclips believes has the rights to the song just happened to use the same song from the game I was streaming (Silent Hill) so I'm not sure how RUclips's content ID system is supposed to be foolproof when it's giving rights to another channel that clearly also doesn't own the music in question.
What if you are commenting on a RUclips video while streaming? Concerned if CopyRight music comes up in the videos without me knowing. How much is too much?
Can we use an sintetic voice to do the commentary ?
i trust you
For the fair use of commentary, is that for any sport?
Watching this since I'm working on Let's plays on RUclips myself since I'm curious if this would be helpful since how this mess also applies to RUclips.
YT is less stringent than Twitch. So, if you're following Twitch copyright rules, you're also following YT's.
@@iancorzine Ah, thank you for the feedback Ian. This really helps me out.
Happy new year my friend
Your little friend ZanyZara
Happy new year! Zany! Let's make 2021 a good one!
I have a question : I would like to stream and comment UFC fights, tennis matches, and Football (soccer) games. Obviously, not showing them live, but using either highlights or replays that are available for free on the official leagues and companies' RUclips channels. Is that possible?
Thanks for your work.
What if you wanted to play famous music for background music like a song for Billie eylish idk if i said it right and are you able to play that music ?
Hi, this is a great question. I would love to help out and answer any questions you may have! I have a LIVE Q&A show this Saturday.
You can drop your questions and concerns on my LIVE show and TUNE IN.
Kindly check this link to get a notification.
facebook.com/yoursocialmedialawyer/posts/1231061260678010
Thanks 😀 sir for providing this important information 😍
It's my pleasure
Is there a way to fight back against etsy copyright infringement?
Hi, this is a great question. I would love to help out and answer any questions you may have! I have a LIVE Q&A show this Saturday.
You can drop your questions and concerns on my LIVE show and TUNE IN.Kindly check this link to get a notification.
facebook.com/yoursocialmedialawyer/posts/1231061260678010
What if I used a 7 min portion of a horror/action movie but dubbed it in a funny way and not even related to the story? Hoping for your response. Thank you.
Maseo is the DJ for this Hip Hop group De La Soul. Just saying. You pronounced his name wrong too, but whatever 😂
Yeah, I remembered that. How do you pronounce it?
@@iancorzine "Mase-o" like Ace.. Not Mass. If that makes sense.
Ok but the video didn't answer the question 90% of twitch streamers want to know. What about a short 3 or 4 second music klip that followers can trigger during a stream
Can you get a copyright claim or strike on a youtube thumbnail? Like using images from google and making a thumbnail yourself..like logos and stuff would that count as fair use
If you make it your own it would probably go under "fair use"
Great information
Glad it was helpful!
but what about Rhythm Games like Konami's old DanceDanceRevolution? it's a game i know and i'm very concerned about because tha gameplay is tha music and there's no way of controlling tha copyright on music/rhythm games like DanceDanceRevolution sadly :'(
and u forgot to talk about Rhythm Games
Hi, this is a great question. I would love to help out and answer any questions you may have! I have a LIVE Q&A show this Saturday.
You can drop your questions and concerns on my LIVE show and TUNE IN.Kindly check this link to get a notification.
facebook.com/yoursocialmedialawyer/posts/1231061260678010
@@iancorzine i don't use Facebook anymore sadly although i would follow ya on other platforms you restream from
Nice video Friend.
Yeet! Thanks my guy
First!!!
Thanks Tom!
@@iancorzine Love the channel!
could you play & react to news clips/stories by inserting your own commentary before, after, & during the clips, and it be considered as fair use?
essentially following a standard radio talk-show structure
Lmao, I am confused again on changing one art into another art and now not being transformative when do simply samplings creating something.. CONFUSION. I know sound garden v. rolling stones, bowie/green v. Vanilla ice... all the greedy Marvin gaye trust suits...but no offense they sound similar but really different new songs only so many chords.
Is dmca passed cuz that is what I am really worried
Thats good
Don’t do what pokimane did
Uploading porn is allowed to twitch or not
useful vid thanks. you can send me your bill for theses15 minutes of consulting to my regular mail dear ian