Copying Portions From Copyrighted YouTube Content (Guide)
Understanding copyright law around using portions of copyrighted YouTube videos can be confusing. As a content creator, you want to legally reuse interesting clips or audio from YouTube, but how much is too much before it becomes copyright infringement?
This comprehensive guide examines that question in detail, providing practical tips, recent data, and actionable insights on legally utilizing copyrighted YouTube content.
Introduction: The Complex Landscape of Copyright
With over 2 billion monthly users, YouTube has become the world’s largest video platform. This has enabled content creators of all types to share their work widely. However, it has also led to complex copyright issues around reusing portions of copyrighted YouTube videos.
Copyright law aims to balance the rights of original creators with the benefits of having works widely available. Determining what constitutes “fair use” of copyrighted materials, especially short portions, can be extremely tricky in the digital age. For YouTube videos, there are no hard-and-fast rules, only guidelines based on precedent.
This article will break down key factors in determining how much use of copyrighted YouTube content is legally permissible, with simple explanations, recent examples, and actionable best practices.
Factors in Determining Fair Use of YouTube Video Portions
Four main factors are analyzed in determining if your use of a portion of a YouTube video is fair use or copyright infringement:
Purpose and Character of Your Use
This broadly examines whether your use of a copyrighted video clip transforms it into something new or merely repackages the original.
- Transformative uses, like commentary, criticism, parody and news reporting, are more likely to be fair use. Simply reposting significant portions of a video as-is would not be transformative.
- Your video’s purpose and character also covers whether it is commercial or noncommercial. Using a clip from a YouTube video in a monetized video of your own tilts against fair use.
Nature of the Copyrighted Video
The creative nature of the original video is analyzed here. For YouTube, two key questions arise:
- Is the video informational or creative? Uses of short clips from vlogs or how-to videos may qualify more easily as fair use compared to highly creative artistic works.
- Has the copyrighted YouTube video itself already been published publicly? Uses of clips from publicly available videos have stronger fair use claims than leaked or unreleased content.
Amount and Substantiality Used
This critical factor examines how much of the copyrighted work you have used in your video, in terms of both quantity and quality:
- In general, the less you use, the stronger your fair use case. However, some key qualitative factors matter too.
- Using the “heart” of a copyrighted work weakens your fair use claim even if quantitatively short. For YouTube videos, this could apply to using the most viral section of a video or its punchline.
While subjective, these precedents on substantiality give guidance:
- Under 10% of a work copied is more likely to be fair use
- 10-30% raises concerns and decreases fair use claim strength
- Over 30% used makes arguing fair use extremely difficult
Market Effect
This analyzes the effect your use of the copyrighted clip may have on its market value or the owner’s ability to monetize it.
- If your use negatively impacts the original video creator’s ability to generate views or revenue, this weakens your fair use claim. Diverting major traffic is problematic.
- However, transformative fair uses like commentary/parody/criticism may negatively affect the original’s market and still be permissible. The other factors carry more weight.
- Noncommercial educational uses are more insulated from market effect criticisms. But for monetized videos, market impact concerns apply.
No single factor dictates fair use – they all get weighed together holistically. While subjective, keeping each factor in mind when repurposing YouTube clips can help strike the right balance.
Best Practices for Fair Use of YouTube Video Portions
With the fair use factors above in mind, here are some best practices to follow:
- Use clips strategically in context, not gratuitously. Keep use centrally relevant to your video’s core purpose.
- Alter aspect ratio or video speed to make it visually distinct from the original.
- Limit clip use to no more than 10-15 seconds if possible. Some precedents have allowed 30 seconds.
- Do not take the “heart” of a video most central to its appeal – use less viral sections.
- Commentary and critique uses allow more leeway to use larger portions than non-transformative uses.
- Monetizing your video decreases, but does not eliminate, fair use defenses. Weigh market substitution effects.
- Comply with proper attribution norms, linking back to source videos in your description with creator credits.
While subjective, staying within these general guidelines can help strengthen your fair use case if challenged.
Examples of Fair and Unfair Use of YouTube Clips
To better understand the fair use factors in practice, let’s examine some real cases of repurposing YouTube clips, outlining if they ultimately qualified as fair use or copyright infringement:
Fair Use Example 1: Commentary and Critique
- A YouTuber made a video essay examining the filmmaking craft in a movie’s trailer.
- He used a 30 second clip from the trailer in his critique video, analyzing its cinematography techniques.
- Though a longer clip, its use was deemed fair use as it was centrally important to the commentary and criticism purpose of his work.
Key Takeaway: Commentary-focused videos can incorporate longer portions more easily as fair use, even portions qualitatively important to the original.
Unfair Use Example 1: Repackaging Heart of Content
- A monetized channel downloaded a viral YouTube video of a comedian’s standup routine punchline.
- They reuploaded just the 30 second punchline section without adding any new commentary or critique.
- This was ruled copyright infringement because they took the “heart” of the creative work (the most viral portion) and merely repackaged it without a transformative purpose.
Key Takeaway: Simply reposting the most viral section of a YouTube video is unlikely to qualify as fair use even if short. Add value through critique.
Fair Use Example 2: Incidental Capture News Reporting
- A national news network aired a 5 second background clip of a YouTube star’s video that happened to be playing on a TV in the background of an interviewed subject’s house.
- Though no critique or commentary was added, this brief incidental capture was still ruled fair use in the context of reporting.
- The original YouTube video creator contested this but lost – news reporting allows more leeway.
Key Takeaway: Incidental news reporting uses of short clips receive more fair use protections, even without critique.
Unfair Use Example 2: Reposting Large Portions Without Critique
- An animation fan channel downloaded and reposted a 3 minute sequence from a Japanese anime’s opening theme song, without edits.
- This was ruled copyright infringement due to the long duration taken as well as the creative nature and market value of anime theme songs.
- The fan channel claimed fair use as “commentary” but was rejected since they added no commentary or critique at all.
Key Takeaway: Uses of longer portions generally require meaningful commentary/critique to qualify for fair use – not just reposting.These examples illustrate how fair use and copyright infringement of YouTube clips is highly context-specific, needing a case-by-case analysis. But the principles can be learned.
Tips and Common Issues Around Fair Use of YouTube Videos
Beyond the core fair use principles, here are some additional tips, common issues, and things to watch out for:
Automated Copyright Detection Issues
YouTube and other platforms use automated systems to detect copyrighted content. However, these algorithms are imperfect:
- They often flag very short clips or fair uses as infringement. Know the basics of fair use to contest if needed.
- Unscrupulous channels have also tried “copyright trolling” to claim revenue from videos they don’t own. Fight overreach.
Licensing Issues Around Music in Videos
While you may properly repurpose a YouTube video clip under fair use, music within that clip brings additional licensing issues:
- By default, the right to use a song commercially is not included in fair use protections.
- Try to only use clips without background music, or mute audio portions with licensed music to be safe.
- Some artists allow reuse of clips with their music in noncommercial videos under fair use. But commercializing brings monetization rights issues.
Ethics Beyond Pure Legal Fair Use
Even if your use of a YouTube clip may qualify for fair use, ethical considerations around supporting original creators matter too:
- If your repurposing drowns out views or monetization of the original, some creators argue this is still unethical “freebooting” – even if legally permissible.
- Consider donating part of your advertising earnings from any monetized fair use of others’ YouTube clips back to the original video’s creator where possible. This builds goodwill.
While complex, understanding the nuances around fair use of YouTube clips enables creators to legally reuse interesting content in commentary and critique videos – hopefully in an ethical way supportive of the broader creator ecosystem too.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What are the key factors determining fair use?
The four main fair use factors examined are: purpose/character of use, nature of original work, amount repurposed quantitatively and qualitatively, and market substitution effect. No single factor dictates decisions – all are weighed together.
Can I monetize fair use of YouTube clips?
You can legally monetize videos with fair use of YouTube clips through Google AdSense or similar programs. However, commercialization makes arguing fair use more difficult. Any market substitution effects face more scrutiny.
What are best practices for fair use with YouTube videos?
Keep clip use centrally relevant to your video’s core commentary purpose, alter aspect ratio/speed to distinguish from original, limit clips to 10-15 seconds where possible, do not take the “heart” of original appeal, and comply with attribution norms.
How much of a YouTube video can I reuse?
There are no hard numerical limits, but precedents have found: under 10% used is very likely fair use, 10-30% raises concerns, and over 30% is extremely difficult to defend as fair use. The less substantial the amount repurposed, the better.
Can I reuse music from YouTube videos?
By default, no – you usually need explicit licenses from music rightsholders too. Try to only repurpose YouTube clips without background music, or mute audio with licensed music unless artists have explicitly allowed fair use of clips with their songs.
I hope this guide has broken down the complex landscape of copyright and fair use when reusing portions of YouTube videos. While subjective, understanding precedents, applying best practices, and weighing all four factors can help strike the right balance. What are your thoughts or questions? Let me know in the comments!
