YouTube copyright issues

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

Any internet user who owns a Google account is generally able to upload video contents to YouTube regardless of his or her involvement with the creating process, with the video then published under the uploader's control. If the uploader has applied monetizing settings then he or she may earn a remit from that video.

The context

According to YouTube, when a person creates an original work that is fixed in a physical medium, he or she automatically owns copyright to the work. The owner has the exclusive right to use the work in certain, specific ways.[1] YouTube has developed an automate system which can scan uploaded videos against a database of media content submitted to the Content ID system by various third parties.[2] If audio-visual contents in an uploaded video matches content from the database, YouTube produces a copyright notice indicating that third party content has been matched with the video.[3] When this happens, a 'match policy' set in advance by the copyright holder is applied, the result of which can vary from applying the original copyright holder's monetizing settings on the content or blocking the content from viewing on YouTube.

2013 controversy

In December 2013, YouTube enabled automated Content ID claiming on videos uploaded by users who were signed with multi-channel networks.[4] Previously, videos uploaded to channels that were linked to MCNs could only be claimed manually or removed with a DMCA takedown. This led to a large amount of new claims which suddenly left uploaders unable to place advertisements on their videos until they disputed. Users such as Angry Joe created videos complaining about the changes and how they would negatively affect the livelihoods of video creators.[5]

The sudden increase in claims especially affected channels which uploaded content featuring video games (such as Let's Plays) and movies (such as reviews).

Fine Brothers controversy

<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>

Main article: React (media franchise) § React World controversy

The Fine Bros. (Popular Youtubers) created a program called "React World" and trademarked the word "React". React World was a program where people could use the Fine Bros.'s icons to make there own videos for free, but there where limitations that your content must be monetized on YouTube (with Google AdSense) and that he Fine Bros. would take some of the money that the creator made. That started to cause controversy with the Fine Bros. and the "Reaction" video genre to the point where the Fine Bros. cancelled the program and lost many subscribers. During this event many live-streams of the Fine Bros.'s channel's subscribers going down, also the whole reaction genre developed a strong hatred around it.

2015-2016 fair use controversy

Outcries arose from the YouTube community in late 2015 and onward, regarding the unfair removal of YouTube videos and even entire channels based upon supposed copyright infringement allegations, many of which were invalid as no fair use laws were broken. Much of the controversy erupted when a review of the film Cool Cat Saves the Kids by the channel I Hate Everything was removed from YouTube on November 9, 2015.[6] Videos by large channels such as Channel Awesome and Markiplier were being taken down, and even entire channels, including I Hate Everything, were deleted from the website; complaints sparked across YouTube, as well as on the social media site Twitter.[7][8]

The channel for I Hate Everything has since been restored to YouTube.

On February 26, 2016, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki responded to the controversy on Twitter, writing "Thank you @YouTube community for all the feedback. We're listening".[9] Lately, the "wheres the fair use" movement has became noticeable bigger. The first real event is "FUPA" and the "H3H3 Productions V.S. Matt Hosseinzadeh" case. Matt Hosseinzadeh decided to sue H3H3 Productions because he (H3H3) Made a video making fun of him with his content. The court case would take around $100,000 dollars, so another YouTuber, "Philip DeFranco" started a KickStarted entitled "H3H3 defense fund". It raised up to $130,000 and the leftover money is going to "FUPA" or "Fair Use Protection Account", so when any size YouTuber is receiving unfair lawsuit they can ask for money from the fund and help fight it.

References

  1. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  2. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  3. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  4. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  5. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  6. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  7. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  8. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  9. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

<templatestyles src="Asbox/styles.css"></templatestyles>

Stub icon

This Internet-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Retrieved from "https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=YouTube_copyright_issues&oldid=726314118"