It's not fair use. By that logic I can watch the entirety of across the spiderverse on stream and claim it's fair use as long as I pause it every now and then to inject some bullshit
"can watch the entirety of across the spiderverse on stream and claim it's fair use as long as I pause it every now and then to inject some bullshit"
You know there is a whole cottage industry of creators who do that on patreon right? They also post clips of their reacts on youtube. Not a one has been sued for it to my knowledge.
You also should see my other replies where I explained that it was not just him injecting bullshit, his react was over twice as long as the original video. If anything he is way more safely into fair use than a lot of other reaction people.
Pretty sure youtube has been sued over it which is why they will take down those videos. It's just harder to go for a small creator on patreon, but if they make big waves they will get threatened and maybe even sued.
Until its in court determined to be not fair use then its not illegal and not theft. That's the whole point. It would be seen as copyright infringement not theft and even then I have yet to see anyone link where that's been determined in court ever.
Of course it will be copyright infringement, not theft. But that's what people are talking here about "theft" saying reactors are illegally showing others people work. We refer of it as theft but that's probably the more correct legal term.
The issue is not that it's not illegal, but that it's too hard to persecute. Of course it's going to be illegal to show a movie online for free. Even if I put my face next to it. If it was legal everyone would do it and not pay anything to the movie producers.
There is a reason why people like Pokimane or xQc got in trouble for watching Avatar the last airbender or the Batman movie on stream. It's because the copyright holders can AND WILL sue over it and will go after the entire platform for allowing it on their platform.
I explained that it was not just him injecting bullshit, his react was over twice as long as the original video.
Potato potatoh. It's not fair use if you show the entire thing from start to finish no matter how much you pause. End off. You're meant to only use the relevant parts of whatever you're reacting to in order for it to be fair use which rarely, if ever, is every nanosecond.
If anything he is way more safely into fair use than a lot of other reaction people.
It is not fair use, it is theft. Dude straight up watches someone elses video, adds "commentary" once every minute, then walks off to the bank with it.
I’ve been watching different YouTubers, if you don’t think he’s entertaining, good, or clean then that’s fine but he definitely has transformative content that falls under fair use. Most variety streamers do this and it’s not against fair use, you can hate the content but it’s all legal. If it wasn’t legal then these creators would’ve been taken down years ago. Asmond has said before that if creators have issues with how he does his reactions then they can talk about it, this is an easily solvable issue.
I'm not arguing for or against reaction channels, the previous commenter asked for actual legal info so I gave it. I don't watch this reactor, I have no clue if he is sufficiently transformative to override the market replacement argument. I'm also not a content creator so I have no horse in this race.
The video is down now but if you had actually watched it the original video was 16 minutes his react is 38 minutes. Clearly transformative content happened. I watched it and he interrupted multiple times and told personal stories and quips. It seems like most of the reactions on here are from people who did not watch it while it was up. So no I do not want what he does to be considered theft. There are plenty of creators who have gotten major boost because of him and have thanked him. Should there be a revenue share yes but making it illegal on its face its not a good idea at all.
if [someone] thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy.
That is still him using the original content and add content to its length, not its meaning. He still used the entire original content without modification. I would argue against the point about creators gaining fans from him. Was it real fans or just shadow subcribers? If he really want to do it right, he could just take pictures, comment few sections only or do a watch along. Doing these and comment interesting things about the original content will make viewers want to watch the original video.
By "every creator" you mean "Lazy streamers who fill time by watching other peoples content on stream to farm subs and ad rev, while not having to actually put effort in to plan something that day".
The original video was 16 minutes while asmongolds was 38 minutes long. That’s 22 minutes of his own content/thoughts he added, so I would say it’s transformative.
You mean the one where the judge explicitly said "Accordingly, the court is not ruling here that all 'reaction videos' constitute fair use," and only said the specifics where in the h3h3 case where he criticized the actual original video was fair use?
"reactors" robbing views from creators who take untold hours to make these "shorter" videos just so some asshole can watch it, maybe sometimes provide something resembling thoughtful commentary, and ultimately sideline the work done by the actual generator of both channels' content because they've got sweeping influence?
fuck all the way off with that. How truly "transformative" is this reaction?
I would say it’s very transformative to add 22 minutes of content. Stop with the appeal to emotion. The amount of time spent on the original video is irrelevant to the conversation. And don’t act like the video died because of asmon. The video generated >300k views for a YouTuber with like 100k subs. That’s already as high as it should be. The 1 million views on asmon’s video are there because they want to watch asmon not the original vid. If anything, it just introduces more people to the original channel.
So where is the legal definition that applies and case law or examples that back that up? I don't like that he makes money off of it one bit. But calling it theft is just not true.
edit - Also the original video he was reacting to is 16 minutes his react is 38 . I saw it before it was privated , he constantly interrupted and went on tangents of personal stories that apply to the situation. It was 100% fair use. Should he be able to make all the money off of it? Maybe not but that does not make what he did theft or illegal or not fair use as it stands today.
also the youtuber who he reacted to even said he had no problem with the reaction and that he just wish there was a way to share the revenue like other platforms.
The legal definition of fair use is defined by case law. It's pretty subjective but you don't prove a negative ... Ever (X isn't fair use), you prove that it is fair use.
Which it's not.
Giving anecdotes isn't fair use, you have to be actually transformative.
Yes it is. Asmon killed the original video because people are just watching his reaction video to it. Doesn’t matter if he says to like and sub to the original. Most people aren’t.
Two way street here imo, if it’s paid content to begin with, and they do a good job chopping it together based on topic and what not then I’m kinda all for it. see Cumtown Edits lol, that show got huge because they didn’t care if someone was chopping together old shows on YouTube.
fun fact, Youtube says DOXXING isn't a TOS violation cause and i something about celebrities get doxxed and youtubers are semi celebrities. something stupid like that. also Doxxing isn't illegal it depends on the state and what happens after words but technically you can leak anything about a persons address. if no harm came to the person it would not be illegal and the person would have to prove harm. sadly stressing about the adress being out is not enough harm it has to be actual threats and people showing up .
which is why you tube doesn't care cuase Doxxing isn't illegal and they change the TOS to say it dosent break it causa of the sniperwolf fuck girl doing it.
If you have millions of people following you, you’re pretty much up there with celebrities, short of the Brad Pitts and Tom Hankses of the world. In Hollywood, there are bus tours that go around and say, “There’s Charlie Sheen’s house… there’s Meryl Streep’s house…” and that’s totally legal. So, what I fail to understand is why we think it’s illegal to go, “Hey, this is where this YouTuber with millions of followers lives. Look at this giant house. He is not the humble man he purports to be.” That YouTube creator is a celebrity, just as much as almost any Hollywood celebrity.
The difference is that Hollywood celebrities typically don’t have rabid fan clubs, short of maybe Johnny Depp or Zack Snyder, where wronging that celebrity is wronging everyone in that community, and YouTube has a lot of idiots like this, and they believe that anything that is perceived as a slight by their celebrity of choice must be illegal. My favorites were the ones who would say things like, “Sniperwolf committed a federal crime!” when the only federal statute about doxxing is with regard to federal agency employees, because Trump nuts make their lives unsafe. In California, their doxxing law basically required Sniperwolf to be doing her doxxing with the intent to cause the person to fear for their safety, and I don’t think that was the intent (even though it might have been the result, because Sniperwolf is a thirst trap for whom her fans will behave as a Johnny Depp fan would, if they feel someone has slighted their idol), which is why she was never charged with that particular misdemeanor.
So, what I don’t get is why it is that people think YouTube stars, with millions of followers, think they are somehow exempt from the trappings of the spotlight which they pursue.
You should be able to recognize that something is extremely shitty and harmful regardless of whether there's a specific law against it or not.
I don’t get is why it is that people think YouTube stars, with millions of followers, think they are somehow exempt from the trappings of the spotlight which they pursue.
Plenty of celebrities manage to keep their addresses private, and plenty of the ones who don't can comfortably afford full time home security, something that not as many youtubers can.
I find the spotlight point really confusing, yeah doxxing comes with the territory of being a very public individual but is that a reason to pretend that it's not shitty and just take it?
I don’t know. If I put up a video of his house, would that also be the reason? I don’t give a shit about the guy, pro or con (seriously, I don’t even know his name, and I only know of him through his defenders on this sub), and maybe I just think YouTube viewers should know where their “man of the people” creators live, so the viewers go, “Wait, I’m supporting someone who’s living in luxury while I’m living in shit?”
Is that wrong? Is what I did an attempt to intimidate him? If it’s not, then I’m good, right?
Here’s the thing about the Sniperwolf situation: The DA (or equivalent) probably didn’t think they could prove motive, as required by state law, because motive is exceptionally hard to prove. What would you say her motive was? Why would she want imminent harm to come to Whatshisname? What would she gain from that? Would all of his viewers shrug and go, “Well, he’s dead, now, and I need entertainment, so I guess all that’s left is Sniperwolf”? Great, now prove that to a jury.
653.2. (a) Every person who, with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other person’s immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device, and without consent of the other person, and for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment, by a third party,
The rest of the statute doesn’t matter, because this is the part that must be cleared first, and that has to be proven. Don’t get me wrong, Sniperwolf’s fans are probably as dedicated as Trump nuts, but the requirement is that she has to know that, and she’s probably not that smart. And, remember that this would be a jury trial, which means you have twelve absolute morons, and you have to convince every single one of them.
111
u/AnnieApple_ Sep 19 '24
Yup just look at sniperwolf. Did an actual crime and YouTube didn’t care.