Copyright, Exceptions, and Fair Use: Crash Course Intellectual Property #3

[@wbedard]

You knocked this one completely out of the park, Stan! I'm going to re-share this video within an inch of it's life. Everyone in the modern digital world should watch it. Thanks for all the hard work!

[@WhatsAnOxfordComma]

An INCREDIBLY interesting Crash Course series. One of my absolute favorites.

[@jackingtonfoxpickle4861]

The most graceful end to a crash course episode ever.

[@stellarfirefly]

Finally, now I know the source of the Mongoltage! ^^

[@Xenro66]

"Take not from others, to such an extent and in such a manner that you'd be resentful if they so took from you". I completely agree to that... And that's the rule I generally go by. For example, let's say I wanted to make an intro, and I found an awesome piece of music that lasted for 5 seconds, I'd use it without a doubt. If I created a song, and 5 seconds of it was used in someone's intro (but said where it was sourced), I'd be fine with it. Hell, I'd be fine with them using the entire song, as long as they don't try to claim it as theirs.

[@poordick4320]

Jordan O'C The only problem with that guideline* is that it only works if society as a hole has a general, over arching consensus. Honestly, I don't think we have such a consensus and individual tolerance varies wildly. I've known individuals who would take no offense to someone taking the shirt off their backs or the food off their tables - and others who wouldn't let someone dying of thirst drink from their tap. From what I've found, content creators tend to run the same gambit - and it is from that basic disagreement that so much of our problems are generated. *It's worthing noting that I think the more traditional golden and silver rules suffer the same issues.

[@photios4779]

I like your paraphrase of the Golden Rule. Unfortunately there is a different Golden Rule which is applicable to song copyrights, "He who has the gold makes the rules." Corporate lobbyists have influenced politicians over the years into making copyright laws and enforcement increasingly strict. Many KZbinrs have received copyright claims or strikes over a few second snippet of a song in their video. I've even come across instances (e.g. Mumbo Jumbo's channel) of a copyright claim being issued over an unauthorized _sample_ embedded within a short snippet of a song the uploader otherwise has permission to use. It's kind of like a cop pulling you over for going one mile per hour over the speed limit; there are some individuals and groups who are so protective over their copyrights they will flag the smallest "unauthorized" use according to the strict letter of the law. As someone previously stated, people (and corporations) have different levels of tolerance for creative reuse of their copyrighted works. If I were a musical artist, I'd be thrilled if someone used a five second clip of one of my songs in their intro as long as I was given credit. But there are artists who feel very differently. Prince for example was notoriously strict when it comes to copyright and others reusing content from his songs.

[@economath8164]

Thumbs up for each time you caught the little Mongol pop up in the background every time Stan said "exception".

[@economath8164]

I count 9 times throughout the video.

[@LatonyaWilliams]

I didn't know what that thing was...thanks for I thought I was going crazier :D

[@economath8164]

@@LatonyaWilliams Haha! Yeah, it's a callback to the Crash Course World History series. Every time there's some broad global historical trend, somehow the Mongols manage to be an exception. It's like its own thing in that history series.

[@produck11]

Water aerobics probably isn't very good for a fresh tattoo

[@michaelmerrill7075]

As a beginning KZbinr, this video - and this whole course - is fantastic! Thank you!

[@matheuscardoso1]

One day I'm gonna be rich. Then I will finally support you guys on Patreon, to reward you for the much I've learned watching your videos (not only this serie, but History, Economics, etc.). Grateful for all of this. Keep up with the good work.

[@radishraccoon3657]

These are such interesting videos. And Stan is a really good and clear speaker. I think it sometimes gets a bit bogged down in terminology, but the first video in the series definitely suffered a lot more from that than this one and the previous.

[@SalemCobalt]

Stan really REALLY needs to star in more future Crash Course series. This is awesome!

[@brainjartv7709]

Superb stuff - this video manages to make a potentially boring and annoying subject both informative AND hugely entertaining!

[@LetsTakeWalk]

Fair Use should not be used as a defense. It should be proven that a copyright infringement was not done in Fair Use. Meaning, a copyright owner must first proof Fair Use WAS NOT in play.

[@MADDMOODY516]

i want to make a clip vid of all my fav comedy bits of all time is that fair use?

[@Tavdogg11]

Red seeds yes, but be careful, youtubes copyright system is broken

[@jeremyw9709]

Exactly. Copyright on KZbin seems to have a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality that needs to go away

[@AnlanCA]

This video requires lots of research. Thanks for updating!

[@DuranmanX]

make a video on the legality of Let's Plays and how monetization fits into this

[@EverettGuenther]

That would be a pretty simple video though. Most disputes over copyright in Lets Plays are either very black and white , a false claim or a technical error by KZbin.

[@bemusedalligator]

***** Let's Plays/walkthroughs are almost always legal. Monetization of let's plays and walkthroughs are usually not, but getting the necessary permission from the publisher is not very hard Take for instance Final fantasy 14 (support.na.square-enix.com/rule.php?id=5382&tag=authc) they give you a notice to stick in the video description, an say that "You may not sell the materials to third parties" (eg. youtube) "as original content", and "you may not use the materials to promote other commercial products" (eg. have advertising on your video). so you may record and post the video as long as you have the copyright notice, and do not show ads with the content, so you may not monetize without permission.

[@DuranmanX]

what about a discussion on emulation of software you bought? there are people who'd argue that is legal

[@Mostlyharmless1985]

***** It is perfectly legal. reverse engineering a product is protected. Writing software that emulates the behavior of a piece of hardware is allowed as long as none of the original IP coding is used. that is to say, I can write a piece of code that acts exactly like an NES ROM chip, I can't copy the rom chip byte for byte and include it in my code and sell it. (in fact, i certainly can do such a t hing cause the NES patent is up, so you can make as many hardware clones of it that you want but that's not the point i'm trying to make :) ) As for the software that runs on videogame emulation, it's a bit more sticky. I can not distribute a game rom. I can't even download a game rom of a game that I personally own. But i AM allowed to copy a game rom to whatever format I choose and use it however I want.

[@aberaham]

***** If the software has any type of DRM, the DMCA makes it illegal to break that DRM (or to even tell how to break the DRM) even if you legally own the software. Before the DMCA existed, something like an emulator would probably have been perfectly legal, but enabling software to be used on devices that it was not made for is likely a violation.

[@Miloolio]

I love the way you talk, so easy to understand different topics. Thanks!

[@LifeofMarie267]

Stan, you explained it better than my Communication Law professor did in college. Bravo!

[@daedra40]

That quotation at the end sound so poetic if not practical.

[@Zarsla]

Reference Time: The 1D poster in the background, I laughed when I saw Zayn was crossed out with a frown-y face. 0:42-0:53, also the vacuum bot, the thing he made last episode, Paper Towns, the Tardis,the magic eight ball, the crash course us history poster, talyor swift poster, oxy-clean poster, the angular fish. 0:58-1:05 A world history poster, a mongol statue (Do those exist, cause that would be cool If I could by one),, the Uncle Sam wants you to work for country with either Hank or John. 1:06-1:10: I think that was some US presidents in the car in the window 1:41-1:46: Emily in Pictures, His dog on vacuum bot. 1:47-201 Wheezy, Emily, Hank and Phil wearing a mongol mask at John Green's Birthday party, Also iPhone. Also his dog is everywhere, even in the pool at his water aerobics class. Man, I love the thought bubble.

[@Tomyb15]

The thank you board at the end still uses the subbable heart! There is nothing wrong, it just makes a bit less sense here, but still I like to see that the logo has not gone to waste!

[@scottwiseman2966]

You have inspired me. Fingers crossed that KZbin and Adsense approves me to move forward. Love your Buy CrashCourse merchandise. Serious high tech

[@toreinimene1071]

I hope this guy will replace John Green in social and liberal arts courses. This video was the best in this course so far. Thanks for sharing the info.

[@fancydressinvite]

crash course ethics/philosophy would be amazing. one can dream

[@ikemoon127]

Katie H It's here, 40+ episodes in.

[@fancydressinvite]

i know i'm watching it too! so happy they did it

[@jessesierke6264]

Thanks for the awesome information! Im a writer who wanted to know what I need to do to borrow ideas from other works. I’ll use the “transformative use” test, and run it by a copyright lawyer before submitting it to a publisher.

[@AldoOjeda]

Water aerobics after getting a tattoo? worst idea ever. You don't get near a pool unless you want to catch an infection!

[@floresblancoyasociados9676]

Great Job. We are impressed. Greetings from mexico. We ourselves try to educate the audience about copyright and you’re a great inspiration.

[@RodimusPrimal]

So to my understanding, explaining a plot hole in a TV series and showing clips from that series to explain my point would be considered fair use right? If so then please, explain that to Hasbro!

[@CAT-2323]

RodimusPrimal it should

[@MissPopuri]

How much money are you willing to dish out in order to get the lawyer to fight by your side?

[@hafizmusayev927]

silinsin

[@sillygoose635]

as long as you ask for permission

[@photios4779]

It should be fair use under American law as long as the clips are directly relevant to your commentary and show no more than what is necessary to illustrate your points. But a lot of big media companies will still claim _any_ video that features their content, regardless of fair use. They have the money to spend millions on hiring the best lawyers, and you most likely don't. Life isn't always fair.

[@JusIgnoreMe]

Why the heck would anyone dislike this? What's wrong with this world?

[@imovers]

Have you considered updating this?

[@dianahaas2510]

Seventh like! I just want to thank my teacher. He has influenced me very deeply and I never thought I would be under ten likes. Thank you guys for reading my comments. I love you all. Thank you

[@rorycavanagh5475]

Great video. Excellent sense of humour

[@paco8009]

3:11 anyone catch that in background!

[@youtoobay]

Ahmed There's another one at 5:32, I wonder if there's more.

[@brdn666]

Caucasiafro Yeah, there seems to be one every time Stan says exception. :)

[@BinaryHistory]

Caucasiafro 5:24, look at the plant. Also, 6:36, pillar

[@ReallyWemja]

Brandon Saintonge the question now is: What is it ?

[@jkkolham170]

Caucasiafro there's one at 3:15 3:18 3:20 5:25 the one you said at 5:32 and one at 6:33.

[@momijitattoo]

Please people! Do not get in a pool just after getting tattooed! Actually do not get in a pool until it is healed! XD

[@AldrymG]

1:55 John Green's Birthday ft. Hank Green, Emily Graslie, Craig Benzine, and Phil Plait.

[@s_mores]

Another really interesting subject, with a great speaker, thanks :)

[@jakepelter4045]

I love you Stan.

[@Paul_Ernst]

Hi Stan - it would be great if you could cover plagiarism in music - who really owns copyright in a drum pattern, a chord progression, a melody of three notes? some decisions seems so arbitrary and inconsistent. and does it matter that 'stealing' from old songs tends to boost sales for the old song, not reduce it?

[@joshk6577]

Thanks for this series. Really caught my interest. You have my patronage.

[@shawnjones3360]

Love the little mongol popping up all over in the background lol

[@dwolivas]

Watched all 3 in a row today, thanks for making me laugh, and for all the info. I hope in the 3 years since you made this not much has changed in terms of the basics. I know USA copyright is about to change for the first time in decades, its about time for this new global service that will administer copyright law for the digital world

[@gustavojohannessautter9484]

I always had this question in mind: If i upload something that infriges copyright in Brazil, but the site that i uploaded is in the US, what copyright law goes: the Brazilian one or the Americn one?

[@photios4779]

If you're a Brazilian citizen or resident, you could get into trouble for uploading something that infringes copyright in Brazil, even if it does not do so in the U.S. If the copyright owner discovers that you're the uploader, they could file a lawsuit against you in Brazil. Even though you're placing the work on a foreign website and it is legal content where it is hosted, the fact remains that you're still guilty of infringement in Brazil because you had no legal right under Brazilian law to reproduce the content. But if you're an American with no connections to Brazil, you're not going to get into trouble because Brazilian courts have no jurisdiction over you. The site itself might get into trouble though if it has operations in Brazil or is merely accessible there. Project Gutenberg (a US based repository of public domain books) once got into trouble in Germany for hosting a book that is public domain in the US, but still under copyright protection in Germany. A German court ordered their entire website to be geoblocked for German users. I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, so anyone who is may correct me on any inaccuracies.

[@ZeldagigafanMatthew]

It ultimately comes down to two questions. 1: What country are you a citizen of, and 2: Does Brazil have what is known as a "copyright treaty" with the country you're a citizen of.

[@gustavojohannessautter9484]

@@ZeldagigafanMatthew interestingly now I'm studying law here in Brazil, so I now the answer I guess lol

[@photios4779]

@@ZeldagigafanMatthew Just a little clarification on the second question. Nearly all of the world's countries have ratified and implemented the Berne Convention, which requires countries to recognize the copyrights in all member countries for a minimum of the life of the author + 50 years. So Brazil and most other countries do have a copyright treaty with the United States. Unfortunately things get messy when it comes to older works near the end of their copyright term because some countries have extended the duration of copyright protection beyond the Berne minimum and others haven't. The United States also arbitrarily decided in 1998 to grant a fixed term of 95 years to all works published prior to 1978, unless they already entered the public domain through a failure to register or renew the copyright, but that's just an added layer of complication. Anyways, no other country does this because the life of the author + either 50 or 70 years is the standard nearly all other countries use. This means that some works will be public domain in Brazil, but still copyrighted in the United States, and vice versa. What matters here as far as copyright is concerned is the law in the particular country you're a citizen or permanent resident of. You don't have to dig deep into international treaty relations with Brazil to find out if a work by a Brazilian author is still copyrighted in the United States; you just have to consult American law and know when the work was first published. Any international treaty that requires a change in American law will result in the law being amended by Congress when the treaty is implemented. But if you're an American running a website which hosts a work published by a Brazilian author that is public domain in the United States and still under copyright protection in Brazil, then you may need to geoblock access to that work for visitors to your site with Brazilian IP addresses, just to be on the safe side.

[@anthonyortiz6675]

A single 140 character tweet and, depending on the length, a single Facebook post, would not be sufficient in length to contain a "modicum of originality" as the court held in Feist. So while it would be "fixed" for purposes of §102, there would not be the requisite originality in order for the work to be copyrightable. If its not copyrightable, its not subject to any of the exceptions or defenses. This is subject to change if there are numerous posts/tweets. An argument could be made that the works, in the aggregate, are copyrightable as a "compilation" under §103. Also, following your tattoo hypothetical, under §109(c), "...the owner of a particular copy lawfully made under this title...is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to display that copy publicly...to viewers present at the place where the copy is located." As long as you can prove that you obtain that particular copy of the work/character lawfully, the "public display" on your arm would be a exception. That's a rather weak argument given that it is not the same "copy," but a reproduction. The stronger argument is that the "purpose and character of the use" (a tattoo) is transformative, non-commerical and not a market substitute for that character, thus weighing heavily in favor of fair use. However, considering this is a "crash course," the rest of your video is on point. Full disclosure: I have a copyright final on Tuesday so this was a rather helpful exercise.

[@chiu20044b122]

Anthony Ortiz I think the beginning of the video was more aimed at showing how infinitely broad copyright laws could affect our lives and why fair use is important. But goods points. (Also have a copyright law final next week)

[@photios4779]

Now that Twitter has increased the character limit from 140 to 280 characters, it's no longer so clear that a single tweet is not sufficient in length to contain the necessary "modicum of originality" to meet the relatively low originality threshold for copyright to exist. As of April 2020, there is a case currently winding its way through the courts (Bell v. Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC) over an allegedly infringing retweet of a quote. Notably a judge refused to dismiss the direct infringement claim and allowed it to proceed to trial. One has to be especially careful about tweeting or retweeting copyrighted photos or videos. In Goldman v. Breitbart News Network, 302 F. Supp. 3d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), federal district court judge Katherine Forrest wrote, "that when defendants caused the embedded Tweets to appear on their websites, their actions violated plaintiff’s exclusive display right; the fact that the image was hosted on a server owned and operated by an unrelated third party (Twitter) does not shield from this result."

[@jimboburgess42069]

awe stan, you're awesome, i love you

Thank you for your videos!!! Very informative and educative!

[@borozanc]

Having Stan present is like The Beatles letting Ringo sing, just way better.

[@usemoretape4302]

If anyone's read Sydney Padua's new book The Thrilling Adventures of Lovelace and Babbage (based on her webcomic), she makes a pretty convincing argument that she was able to find biographical information on Babbage that had been forgotten since the 1800's through Google Books and the ability to search through obscure collections of documents without needing to travel physically to pour over old archives of seemingly irrelevant documents. This effect could likely happen with more recent materials, and I think makes a really strong case for, at the very least, being able to upload nonfiction materials without significant transformation.

[@AhmedKMoustafa2]

this is a very complex and important topic. It needs a lot of effort to understand.

[@christophertacitus9011]

An excellent video, very well explained.

[@ClayMorgan]

Awesome series guys. Keep up the great work.

[@Holobrine]

6:32 There's another one behind the pillar.

[@Yewon2001]

This is interesting. I'm current suing someone for stealing my facebook group that I spent 10 years building so I like this series.

[@FrozenSpector]

One of the important takeaways from this video: @ 6:14 "Anyway, 'fair use' is an 'affirmative defense', which means the defendant must show and prove that the use was 'fair' and not an infringement." More information can be found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense

[@mh1ultramarine]

Some end user argements take me a day to read. Apples I just gave up on, I don't even remember the start when I'm finished

[@themotherbrassica]

I would have thought that translating a song into another language and uploading a timed subtitle track with the audio would fall under the realm of transformative use, since it would bring the song to a wider audience than it could otherwise have reached. I'm not fully sure I understand how and why record labels make copyright claims against this sort of video.

[@verygoodvideoediting3011]

Great info, thank you! FYI, looks like there's an ongoing lawsuit where a photographer is suit over someone getting a tattoo of one of their pictures, and the plaintiff seems to be winning, crazy. Looks up Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg No. CV 21-1102, 2022 WL 2784818 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2022)

[@Holobrine]

Are there international copyright laws? What happens if a Brit uploads something that violates US copyright but not UK copyright? Whose laws do you go by?

[@bemusedalligator]

Holobrine the laws are different in different countries. If you're in the US and break US copywrite you get prosecuted, if you're in britain and break US copywrite no one cares, unless they hate you enough to extradite you to the US to be punished. Just like if you murder someone in the US and go to britain, you don't get punished for murder in britain, you get punished in the US

[@aberaham]

Holobrine I'm assuming they'll get into it eventually in this series; but yes, there is international copyright enforcement. Quite a few countries have agreed to enforce each others copyrights, this agreement is called the Berne Convention. There are countries that aren't part of this agreement--china, as an example--which causes a lot of tension during trade negotiations. Also, the US is very coercive in trying to get other countries to enforce the US's copyrights by placing trade restrictions on countries (this recently happened to Spain).

[@delusionnnnn]

Holobrine While different countries have different specific laws, what generally happens is that it's in the best interests of countries with the largest marketable amounts of intellectual property (lobbying firms representing the distribution companies) to agree to laws which are generally compatible with one another. This is why there are international copyright agreements which more and more countries are signatories to, and why countries like the US, the UK, and Japan are heavily invested in promoting worldwide.

[@neeneko]

Bradley Callaway Given the increasingly low barrier for brining such cases, we are seeing more and more of this happen. Just like inter-state copyright claims have become more common (where you have to travel from your state to the one you are being sued in otherwise there is summary judgement), we are increasingly seeing companies bring suit against individuals in other countries who then have to either travel to the US or have a summary judgement against them. Granted at that point collecting can be difficult, but not impossible.

[@RothAnim]

aberaham Yep. Not every country follows every aspect of the Berne Convention either. Good example is droit morale, the idea that the original creator retains moral rights to the presentation of their work, separate from economic rights. US copyright law does not incorporate these; laws in Canada and much of Europe do. These rights are not lost under Work for Hire, and must be explicitly waived in contracts. The classic Canadian example is Snow v. The Eaton Centre Ltd. Artist Michel Snow created a sculpture of Canadian Geese for a Toronto Mall. The mall decided to decorate the geese with bows for Christmas. Artist, who did not sign away his moral rights, objected to this presentation, sued the mall to remove the decorations, and won.

[@Resurr3ction]

If digital copy is an infringement of copyright then you cannot even play your legally bought mp3s or read e-books etc. Simply because everytime you use those files the computer makes a copy of them to show them to you. Either to the computer's memory or actually twice (or more) - to HDD first downloading it (and in the process copying it number of times from computer/server to computer/server) from the internet and then to computer's memory to render it - when using cloud services.

[@Jeff-xy7fv]

Any use of any copyrighted work where it is not done for profit should be considered fair use. This would save a TON of copyright issues that pop up. The only infringement lawsuits that should be valid are the ones where someone was trying to make money off someone's intellectual property. All that is needed is a simple redefinition of "fair use".

[@Kirihere]

*claps* this was great! It was so clear and informative

[@AlanmanAaron]

You guys fixed it ☺️☺️☺️

[@heavyh13]

Thanks for the training!

[@TheFireflyGrave]

Now I have to find a way to watch Hercules vs. The Mongols. Thanks Stan.

[@andy4an]

There are still 50 blockbuster videos in the United States. Two of them are in Fairbanks Alaska.

[@Socken1255]

I seem to remember learning somewhere that if the copyrighted work was incidental (like background music in a gym where you filmed your friend running or something) that also contributed to fair use?

[@sergheiadrian]

CrashCourse What the hell is that thing appearing from time to time behind the plant or behind that stand/column (like at 6:32 for example)?

[@kimohearn3087]

It's the exception! Or commonly known as the Crash Course Mongol!

[@retryhikaru184]

Oh wow, this was great! Thanks!

[@GroovyHistorian]

this is a great video thanks for sharing !!!!

[@ArianExtist]

I like Stan; that is all.

[@evans7771]

gave a thumbs up for the adventure time doodle.

[@neeneko]

Hrm. If moving from dead tree to digital is sufficiently transformative for first sale to no longer apply, seems like it should also be transformative enough to kick in fair use. I do not terribly mind companies or groups that attempt to use copyright consistently, but this whole 'not a sale or a license, but combines whichever elements we want at the time' stuff annoys me greatly.

[@Klodvig105]

Noticed how none of the devices at 2:38 mark have no Home buttons or cmd symbol in the keyboard? They are considered to be trademarks, and cannot be used in a stock image.

[@kierandeskus1984]

Hey crash course. I was wondering if maybe someday you can do a series on the U.S. Presidents! That would be pretty cool to see how each of them changed America. Just a thought

[@anthonypc1]

Hey this is great. I mean your video. not the amount of infringement I’m possibly liable for.

[@H2OMudkip]

Are instrumentals of songs fair use?

[@Zerepzerreitug]

That's a nice golden rule for fair use at the end. Also, that mongoltage! :D

[@paulcottrell5537]

I'm so glad the Mongoltage keeps getting its mileage.

[@Jackcabbit]

At the end starting around 11:25 there's some sort of liability statement. Could you guys please use a darker background color for that? It is difficult to read and in the interest of the people likely watching this series it would seem beneficial to let it be more easily read so we can get more of an understanding of contracts and law.

[@ghandiesel]

STAN!!

[@mikeoxsbigg1]

What was the thing behind the podium at 3:18? Did it flip me off? I want answers.

[@josephfox9221]

Mike Oxsbigg it was a mongoloid, its a reference to the movie he talks about

[@mikeoxsbigg1]

Thanks!

[@iTzArtemexFX]

It happens at 5:25 too

[@CharlieHofigan]

So we get Crash Course IP but not Crash Course Philosophy?

[@pokoirlyase5931]

+Phlos Fysics Phan 42 there is @school of life for that i guess :p

[@TarampaStudios]

This is helpful, insightful and entertaining - a rare combination for legal issues! Thank you. (I was looking for templates of wording the "Fair Use Credit" at the end of an educational animation.)

[@barrenhorizons]

the healing of a tattoo is about two weeks straight, the image along with it haven't healed yet when it got already exposed to audience, therefore somebody saw an unprotected art

[@paulhager5868]

Can you legally use an entire copyrighted song in the background of your class presentation? It doesn't damage the copyright holder's profit or claim to the work, but it does borrow their work for your own "gain," if it can be called that...

[@Bozewani]

I love how you close with Crashcourse copyright of course it's not transformative and it's not qualitatively substantive

[@BudCharlesUnderVlogs]

What would be the best legal way to make Quilava (my favourite pokemon) more popular?

[@iluvDNA100]

Bud Charles Who knows, your channel icon could get you sued. Mine even could, if 3DO still exists and cares about this kind of thing.

[@BudCharlesUnderVlogs]

Joe Seph It's not really fair though, all I want to do is help Quilavas, I love them so much, yet because someone else 'owns' them I can't do a friggin thing :/

[@iluvDNA100]

Bud Charles You could always ask Nintendo. Basically what copyright really means is just ask before using.

[@BudCharlesUnderVlogs]

Joe Seph They "don't accept fan ideas". At least that's what they told my friend when he asked about an idea he had. I bet they won't even reply to me. Pfft copyright only works when individual people own things, how the flying ferret do you ask a company something? XD

[@iluvDNA100]

Bud Charles I know right, the least we can do to fix that is to make a copyright expire after a set amount of time. As long as a company doesn't dissolve or sell their rights, their copyrights can't expire because copyright is the lifetime of the owner +70 years. Ridiculous! Patents only get ~17 years, ignoring the life of the owner!

[@Pratchettgaiman]

Now I need to go find "Hercules vs. the Mongols"

[@adriel4040]

I've got a question... Is a fan fiction not covered under fair use? I would it be considered an transformative work if your making up a modified plot and adding characters that didn't exist before? Please, I'll been wondering about this for years.

[@shanexyz3972]

Actually the First Sale doctrine doesn't just apply to the reproduction right. It also applies to the display and performance rights - which might actually be more pertinent to everyday life since many designs on clothes that we wear in public can be copyrighted (though not the clothes themselves.) Also, Fair Use isn't an "exception" - it is a defense, and an affirmative one at that (the video refers to it as both. This isn't just semantics either as an exception to copyrightability can potentially get a claim thrown out on summary judgment or can even get the Office to deny registration, thus potentially barring a plaintiff from even filing a suit in the first place. Affirmative defenses, however, come much longer down the line, likely after many fees have been paid. There's a reason why most Fair Use landmark cases involve large corporations as they are the ones who have enough money to even reach the defense phase.

[@Mostlyharmless1985]

So, here's a thought. Say you run a shoutcast stream to listen to music with friends who are across the country. This music includes copyrighted work. If the stream is private and not for any kind of profit, would it be an act of infringement? I would argue it would be the same as having someone over to your house and you play music on the stereo. As the stream is not accessible to the public, and it is not for any profit. Am I wrong for thinking this way? Or is it just another bullet point in how copyright is making us a bunch of scofflaws?

[@bemusedalligator]

Mostlyharmless1985 look at steam's family sharing thingy. You can do that all you want and it's legal. I can share my games library with My brother in california (i'm in washington), and no copywright infringement issues. store.steampowered.com/promotion/familysharing

[@Mostlyharmless1985]

well, streaming music counts as a performance though.

[@fizzicist7678]

if you can lock the stream to you and your friends alone, no harm there.

[@kbflash2543]

this is sooo helpful u have no idea what happens when you use a remixed song tho

[@darkmushroom9294]

Awesome video!

[@jazzbeau507]

Really interesting, thank you.

[@alpen6652]

Jinx needs to see this

[@lilliedoubleyou3865]

QUESTION: He says that "fair use" isn't defined in the copyright statute, but... I thought it was? We've all seen the youtube videos that boldly declare that their work is protected "under fair use--" then they have some kind of text that they all quote. What is that, then?

[@wolframbloomer5887]

That statement is "Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976: allowance is to be made for the fair use of portions of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." It's the only time "Fair Use" is mentioned in the Copyright Act, and it doesn't define fair use, but instead gives a few examples of it.

[@romans8910]

Amelia Doubleyou do you still want this info ?

[@romans8910]

Wolfram Bloomer the 1976 law updates to allow the use of the law to include music, videos, movies ect. When the original fair use copyright law was added none of what we use today was considered. All the original fair use laws are still in effect today. THIS IS MY OPINION AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS FACT.

[@romans8910]

Amelia Doubleyou I agree with you, in my opinion fair use was added as part of copyright law.

[@lilliedoubleyou3865]

romans8910 Thanks!

[@JulianDrangosch]

I think here is the best way to post this question, is it ok for me to link videos of Crashcourse physics in a closed virtual learning enviroment? or am I violating any copyright law??? Thanks!

[@nadamuchu]

What about KZbin Channels like "Subtitled Trailers"? I am deaf and would like to start a organization that posts captioned versions of trailers and other short form video content onto KZbin to make these videos accessible to Deaf audiences (this is a serious problem by the way, despite the laws in place). To me, this appears to be in alignment with providing braille versions of books. What do you think?

[@cmeflywva]

I need that Crash Course blanket. Make it a thing!

[@MikeRitchkinburger]

cmeflywva I second that motion!

[@GlowyGlowStaff]

Behind the column... 6:32 I saw what you did there!

[@joshn2564]

If I have an idea I post on Patreon, but somebody else thought of the same idea in the past who owns the idea? For Example www.patreon.com/user?u=752487 Found the Answer in the copyright 'golden rule' quote at the end "take not from others to such an extent and in such a manner that you would be resentful if they so too took from you." In a way the quote means Love thy Neighbors right to intellectual property.

[@photios4779]

Copyright only protects the specific expressions of an idea, not the idea itself. On a generic level of basic story plots, character types, musical themes, artistic styles, etc. most ideas have already been done by someone else. You shouldn't feel guilty about using a basic or generic idea that has already been done, as long as you express it in your own unique way. Intellectual property law does protect via patents certain forms of ideas that when expressed as a tangible machine, product or process, have a functional purpose, but patent law is not something an artist, writer or musician needs to worry too much about.

[@joe-lewisjavonnelson1523]

One question regarding the "heart" of a product: If someone wanted to make a review of a movie or videogame, are they allowed to tell spoilers?