I'1000 a large YouTube fan.

We can thank YouTube for cutting the gordian knot of video codecs. Instead of futzing around with codecs and media players, YouTube'south universal, Flash-based spider web video "just works". After all this time, it turns out the killer app for Flash wasn't advertizement or web games. It was video. It'due south a cantankerous-platform model Microsoft is aping with Silverlight, and for good reason.

YouTube feels like a web institution already, even though the site is less than 2 years erstwhile. I beloved the fact that (about) whatsoever video ephemera I can think of tin can exist establish on YouTube, and instantly shared with anyone in the world using nothing more than a web browser and a hyperlink. It'due south a beautiful thing.

But one thing bugs me most YouTube. On their upload page, y'all'll find this disclaimer:

Do not upload any TV shows, music videos, music concerts, or commercials without permission unless they consist entirely of content you lot created yourself. Delight refer to our Copyright Tips folio for some guidelines and links to assist y'all decide whether your video infringes someone else's copyright.

Take a minute to read YouTube's copyright tips page. I'k serious. Read it. Information technology'due south full of gems like this:

  • It doesn't matter how long or short the clip is, or exactly how it got to YouTube. If y'all taped it off cable, videotaped your Telly screen, or downloaded information technology from another website, it is still copyrighted, and requires the copyright possessor's permission to distribute.
  • It doesn't matter whether or not you give credit to the owner/author/songwriter -- it is nevertheless copyrighted.
  • Information technology doesn't matter that y'all are not selling the video for coin -- it is still copyrighted.
  • It doesn't affair whether or not the video contains a copyright notice -- it is notwithstanding copyrighted.
  • It doesn't matter whether other like videos appear on our site -- it is nonetheless copyrighted.
  • It doesn't thing if y'all created a video made of brusque clips of copyrighted content -- even though you edited it together, the content is nevertheless copyrighted.

Now think back through all the videos you've watched on YouTube. How many of them independent any original content? Let's run into. Recently I've linked to the faux Machete trailer from Grindhouse, a classic Kids in the Hall skit (and another one), a surreal computer animated skit called Bingo the Clown-O, and the Author's Award intro from the 2007 Emmys. Notice anything in common here? That's correct. Virtually everything of interest on YouTube is copyrighted content.

Information technology's perchance the ultimate case of cerebral racket: by YouTube's own rules, YouTube cannot exist. And still information technology does.

YouTube: f**k copyright(tm)

How do we reconcile YouTube'southward official difficult-line position on copyright with the reality that 90% of the content on their site is conspicuously copyrighted and clearly used without permission? It seems YouTube has an awfully convenient "don't enquire, don't tell" policy-- they brand no effort to verify that the uploaded content is either original content or fair apply. The copyrighted content stays up until the copyright possessor complains. Then, and only so, is it removed.

Anytime we go enlightened that a video or any role of a video on our site infringes the copyrights of a third party, we will take information technology down from the site. Nosotros are required to do so by constabulary. If yous believe that a video on the site infringes your copyright, send us a copyright detect and nosotros volition take it down.

It's completely glossed over on the YouTube copyright page in favor of 100% original content, but the loophole in copyright is fair use. Under the banner of fair apply, you could legally upload a video without the copyright holder's permission. Anyone who contributes anything to the web should accept the four factors of fair use commited to memory past now:

  1. the purpose of the utilize
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work
  3. the relative amount of the portion used
  4. the market event of the use on the copyrighted work

These are the four factors courts use to determine if something is off-white use. It'due south worth digging a footling deeper to see how these could potentially apply to a typical YouTube video prune.

fair use factors

1. Was it transformative? Uploading a ii infinitesimal clip from Kids in the Hall isn't transformative in the least. Zilch new was added. No context was provided. It's not a parody, it's non inquiry, information technology'due south non commentary. Information technology'south a small segment of the original content, transplanted to the web. It's but "transformative" in the sense that it's much more readily available to the public.

ii. What is the nature of the source material? The majority of clips on YouTube are there to amuse; they describe their source fabric from works of amusement. Amusement is an enjoyable pastime, but it'south non a public good. Dissemenation of facts or information benefits the public; video clips of man getting hitting in the groin with football.. not so much.

three. How much was taken? YouTube instituted a x minute length limit, probably to prevent excessive use claims from taking root. Information technology'south a policy that seems to work. Almost clips tend to be fairly small, even after factoring in the ten minute limit.

iv. What's the market place effect? I find it very difficult to believe that the short, grainy, low-resolution clips on YouTube could have whatsoever kind of measurable negative financial effect on content providers. This is one case where YouTube'south below-the-bottom-of-the-barrel video quality works in their favor.

The typical YouTube clip does well on the terminal two factors of the off-white use test, just utterly fails the starting time ii. This is non good, considering the factors are listed in order of importance; the transformative and nature tests are considered the almost significant factors by courts. It is not possible to brand a supportable fair use case for most video clips using copyrighted material on YouTube.

I'thousand not attacking YouTube here. I retrieve having access to all this copyrighted content in bite-size embeddable form is ultimately a cyberspace good for both consumers and creators. What I don't empathise is why YouTube continues to go away with the large copyright prevarication they've perpetuated from solar day one. They pay lip service to copyright, while edifice their business concern on an empire of unauthorized, copyrighted content. It's so brazen-- so blatant.

You can contend that copyright law is cleaved. I won't disagree with you. But I still dislike YouTube's massive hypocrisy in this area, and I wonder why other people and companies don't become the free ride from the hyper-litigious entertainment industry that YouTube seems to relish.