Time for my periodic public callout of @UMG, who claimed this video, specifically the song starting at 13:43, an extremely clear-cut example of fair use, as the discussion is the lyrics of the claimed song. There's subtitles and everything.https://youtu.be/xU1ffHa47YY?t=823 …
-
Show this thread
-
See here's the thing - this video has sponsored content, meaning there should not be ads running on the thing at all. Because
@UMG has claimed the video and refused to release the claim, I am in violation with my contract with@Audible_com15 replies 129 retweets 4,042 likesShow this thread -
Technically, isn’t YouTube in violoation of that contract, since you and Audible both had good faith reasons to believe YouTube would never put ads on this video per their own policies regarding sponsored content? Might be time to get your sponsor involved...
4 replies 16 retweets 1,846 likes -
That's a good question - since the video is marked as having sponsored content in the metadata, it's not like YouTube was unaware. What's the deal
@TeamYouTube?7 replies 32 retweets 2,941 likes -
Replying to @thelindsayellis
Following up: Our Copyright team looked into this & confirmed that the claim is valid. We see that you’ve appealed the claim, which provides UMG with 30 days to review your appeal. If you would like to resolve the issue directly with them, please DM us for more info.
186 replies 9 retweets 246 likes -
Replying to @TeamYouTube @thelindsayellis
Did you forget what fair use is? Or can you not hear through the wads of UMG money stuck in your earhole?
2 replies 2 retweets 335 likes -
Corporations don't care about free speech. They actually only care about one thing.
4 replies 1 retweet 100 likes -
Replying to @onehugman @DaneBroody and
Fair Use is a courtroom defense, technically any copyrighted content can be claimed. But hopefully they release the claim before it gets that far!
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @Nimrod3D @onehugman and
They're not supposed to strike it without a good faith belief it's not fair use, though. It's early and I'm coffee-ing but I'm fairly sure that's DMCA. What's bullshit iirc is the striker doesn't have to swear it under penalty of perjury, but the appealer does
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Either DMCA or Lenz.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.