Hi,
we will give you 7 days to retract your dispute before issuing a copyright strike.
You're severely misunderstanding how copyright law works.
We haven't removed your video from YouTube, nor prevented you from presenting your commentary and voicing your freedom of expression.
We have on the other hand claimed the part of your video which uses, WITHOUT a proper license, an entire minute of our property, since we manage all of Dr Oz assets on YouTube on his behalf.
Fair Use does allow your to transform the original, as you say, and indeed you have NOT received any copyright strike yet.
But it doesn't allow you to monetize intellectual properties not of your own. You have to negotiate an appropriate license for that.
I hope you will appreciate the fact that we try to reach out to Creators instead of just managing copyright and sending out notifications as all of the other networks do.
Thank you.
Andrea
Andrea Materia
Greater Fool Media Srl, CEO
—————
[My reply.]
You are incorrect on every point of fact here —including your
statement that you have NOT made a copyright strike against me (you
have!).
Re: "You're severely misunderstanding how copyright law works."
No, I might say these same words back to you: I'd encourage you to
consider both youtube's own guidelines and to just glance at a few
wikipedia articles on the "Fair Use" case law (court precedents) that
both define and describe what the American tradition is.
Please ask yourself this question: would a T.V. station be allowed to
play "an entire minute" (as you say) of the film Star Wars, in the
process of offering a critique of that film? Yes, they would. That
is fair use (a.k.a. "fair dealing", etc.) —and it is a clearly
protected form of freedom of speech.
Please ask yourself: would I be allowed to play "an entire minute" of
footage of Donald Trump speaking (that I did not record myself, but
someone else owned the rights to) in the course of offering a critique
of Donald Trump? This is the most clearly protected use of freedom of
speech in the United States (and in most western democracies likewise)
and I am protected even in broadcasting on television and even in
offering advertisements (in a newspaper, on television, or on youtube)
because a law to the contrary would have "a chilling effect" on
freedom of speech.
You say that you are a C.E.O.
May I ask what university education you have? My major was political
science. I understand your (stated) good intentions, but you're wrong
on this: if you take me to court, you'll lose (a very casual glance at
Wikipedia-level summaries of salient case law will make this clear to
you, if you have some education in the field.
Thank you for your time, and by all means, please do cancel your
copyright strike against my channel. Otherwise, yes, I'll see you in
court.
E.M.
