Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Coding Horror: YouTube vs. Fair Use (codinghorror.com)
147 points by fogus on Sept 17, 2010 | hide | past | web | favorite | 100 comments

The more interesting next step is that the matching is being used to send advertising revenue to the copyright owners. So instead of taking down your video, the copyright owner can opt to leave it up and collect on the ad dollars.

The recent example of this was the clip from Mad Men about the carousel (if you haven't seen it, look it up). Uploaded by an ordinary user but AMC left it up and instead collected on the ad revenue.

So the tech isn't just being used to prevent any clips from reaching the web - it is actually enabling copyrighted content to be shared and quoted on the web with a sustainable business model - a whole point that Jeff missed.

The Economist wrote about this a while ago.

And everyone wins in this scenario, don't they? The content owner collects revenue, and the general public gets to view the video they were (probably) searching for.

The content owner collects revenue

And free publicity. Must be nice to have your cake and then get to eat it, too.

It's worthwhile in this situation to note that they baked the cake too.

content owner != creator

Fine, paid for the cake to be baked, or bought it from whoever baked it, or financed the baking in return for some percent interest in the resulting cake's profits, if we must be technical. But this type of objection really, seriously doesn't add to the discussion.

and what if you added just a little bit of your own creativeness into the video/sound clip? shouldn't you be paid also? will machine be also determining how many percent of the revenue you should be getting?

Depends. If you were really creative with it then it would be fair use and the original content owners technically shouldn't get anything.

If I buy a can of tomato soup and pour it in the ocean, do I not own the sea?

According to Andy Warhol

Now that is Pandora box of creativity. It sounds nice if algorithm finds you improved the artwork - you're getting paid your share. In case if it finds that you ruined it ...

There's always a dark side to every argument which is why we see so many companies simply deciding to abandon everything as the easiest solution.

"Uploaded by an ordinary user but AMC left it up and instead collected on the ad revenue."

So, the computer program looked at the facts, passed the judgment and collected upon it. Looks like a very efficient RoboCop and no bloodsucking lawyers involved.

Er, no. AMC owns the studio that produces Mad Men, so their contact with Youtube would have chosen to collect the ad money - not a computer making that decision.

No to your no.

"If Content ID identifies a match between a user upload and material in the reference library, it applies the usage policy designated by the content owner. "

That's what the parent said. The system didn't decide, the content owner did.

TGIF - it is the only reason i could think of to explain the fact that there are at least 2 people who couldn't make distinction between the act of creating law/policy by Congress/"content owner" and the act of application of said law/policy by judge and police / Youtube software.

Isn't this the "Monetize" option that copyright holders can exercise on a video that matches their own in the content id system?

Or do you mean something else?

NYT wrote about exactly that earlier this month: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/technology/03youtube.html

from my article: "The particular content provider whose copyright I matched chose the draconian block policy. That's certainly not Google's fault, but I guess you could say I'm Feeling Unlucky." No, I don't think I missed that point.

Jeff has it wrong. This isn't about fair use, this is about YouTube's content policies. And if YouTube doesn't want any copyrighted content being hosted on their site (fair use or not), they have the right to remove it. I don't understand why it's so hard to realize that YouTube is letting you host video on their site for free. If you want fair use to apply, host it on your own server and spend your own money on the bandwidth costs.

IANAL, But this doesn't sound entirely correct.

Youtube is operating as an OSP under the DMCA safe-habor laws, and this has been upheld in court. Youtbue must therefore act neutrally in each case -- that is, they have obligations both to the uploader and the alleged owner. If they don't fulfill these obligations, such as reinstating a video that doesn't actually violate copyright law (given the existent of fair use,) then they can lose their protection under the DMCA.

Granted, Youtube could opt to not seek protection under the DMCA, but it seems like this isn't their best strategy.

Unfortunately, my fair use claim was denied without explanation by the copyright holder.

Denied by the copyright holder? Now we see that the system does not exist to uphold the law, but rather to serve copyright holders whether they have the law on their side or not.

While I don't have any evidence I'm inclined to believed that Jeff just assumed that the copyright holder reviewed his claim. I'm fairly confident it's YouTube staff that would review the claim and decide if it's fair use or not.

If that's true, then the story boils down to what Lawrence Lessig and others have warned about for years: you can't depend on the inherent nature of the internet or any other technology to nullify bad laws.

I really don't think that Jeff's assumption of fair use would stand any legal test: You can't use excerpts of movies to add humor to a piece. That is not fair use.

Fair use entails criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use != bedazzling a blog post with humorous excerpts.

Agreed and moreover on YouTube it is not part of his blog, but a separate standalone entity. Someone coming to it from YouTub may never see his blog or even be cognizant of the fact that there was commentary (or at least humor in a different context) associated with it at all.

He can mark it as 'unlisted' to overcome that problem.

In http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2010/09/go-that-way-really-... the video clip wasn't just "bedazzling", it was the entire central thesis of my opinion piece. Ditto for this upcoming one (not published yet). I'd also advise you to check out http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use/related-materia...

1.the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes 3.the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4.the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

It was for personal use, not much was taken and there was no market effect so it very well could be fair use.

Is it really for personal use when it's being broadcast over the internet? The feedburner stat on the side of his blog says he has 111k "readers" so it seems pretty impersonal.

It was not for nonprofit educational purposes. It isn't even reasonable to say it was for personal use given that Jeff's last blog entry was packed full of affiliate links.

His blog is a commercial enterprise.

Commercial use does not invalidate a defense of fair use, it's only one part of a multi-part test.

Don't equate fair use with classroom use. There are enough uptight librarians who do that already.

What makes you think he wanted to add humour? Granted, the previous clip was from a comedy, but it was there as inspiration for commentary. It wasn't a tack-on joke.

The clip in question this time appears to have been an excerpt from The Last King of Scotland regarding actionable advice. It was denied by Fox - I got the impression that it's a group-wide policy.

Courts should also consider the length of the excerpt and the potential affect on the market for that work.

I had a similar experience, but the matching success was even more surprising:

I uploaded a home made video of a world cup goal as seen from a plaza screening the game. Loads of crowd noise, AND a big chunk of the video did not have the screen visible (though I guess the commentator could be heard). About 20 minutes later I got a similar email saying FIFA had claimed the rights & the clip is now restricted in some countries. I guess they could have data mined from the title etc., but that's still damn quick for a live broadcast match.

Can a ballgame be copyrighted? I would assume that only a particular recording of it could be, and since you recorded this it would make you the owner. Apparently what makes FIFA the "owner" of the video is that they are a "Partner" ( http://www.youtube.com/t/partnerships_faq ). You have to meet some criteria, such as popularity and exclusively "owning" content you upload, to become a partner. The partner system appears to be stacked in favor of large entities, regardless of whether they truly "own" the content.

Let's say you had a popular channel though, and you submitted the homemade clip. Depending how YouTube's system works, it could have been FIFA's video that was flagged instead of, or in addition to, yours.

Edit: The logic's a bit circular isn't it? You have to own the content to be a partner, and you have to be a partner to own the content.

I would assume that only a particular recording of it could be, and since you recorded this it would make you the owner.

No - he recorded a broadcast as seen on a screen, i.e. made a vastly degraded copy of a specific live video stream.

Oh, I thought he had made a live recording of the game. My mistake.

No, brazzy is correct - sorry if that wasn't clear. The game was in South Africa, but I filmed a live screening of it in Mexico - a shot of the screen & stage as a goal was scored, then pan to the (Mexican) crowd reaction. I wasn't complaining it was blocked, I was (hopefully) giving colour to the original assertion & conveying how quickly the obscured 'owner' was identified. I understood this was as a result of a 'safe harbour' ruling, but I guess dmoney's point about YouTube's 'partners' also played a part. [edit] corrected attribution.

> Unfortunately, my fair use claim was denied without explanation by the copyright holder.

Wait, what? Why is it the copyright holder that gets to decide what constitutes fair use? The present system seems subject to abuse.

Conveniently, nobody said anything when it used to be the other way around...

For whatever it's worth, look at the first comment:

In the context of youtube -- which is the context you were uploading the clip to, after all -- it's just a 90 second clip from their movie. No editorial, it's the entire thing. Someone browsing youtube who finds it will have no idea that there was a blog connected to it.

The copyright holder doesn't get to decide what constitutes fair use. But neither does the person posting the content, or the site that's hosting it. The only entity that can determine whether a given use is "fair" is a court of law.

Regardless of the language used in the dispute form, this incident really has little to nothing to do with fair use, and everything to do with Youtube's hosting practices.

The amount of CS that Jeff doesn't know never ceases to amaze me; he should read more Hacker News ;)

Yet he's built one of the most useful websites I've ever used.

I think the disconnect between these two statements says something.

Jeff has one of the classic problems of an autodidact - gaps in his knowledge. If you followed along with the saga of SO's creation on codinghorror, you saw him run into these headlong on many occasions. He also tends to pontificate on issues he's learned recently and doesn't understand completely a bit too often for my liking. One thing he does have going for him though is an unbelievable amount of pluck.

Sounds like Jeff has a non-CS background; aka, he's one of these guys that has the capability to really understand this stuff at a deep, meaningful level, but sometimes (often?) runs into his own limits (note: this is not to say CS 'people' are incapable of this - but rather - this is a trait that is not automatic whether you are 'self-taught' or a CS grad).

The 'plunk' you are describing is his ability to just 'get it done' - a trait I think most tech founders greatly underestimate. It's an ability or mental strength that makes a person able to will the project over the goal-line. I'm amazed how hard it is to complete anything - whether it's a startup app I'm working on or a piece of music - finishing it 100% and getting it 'in the can' is no small feet. It's special gift, and one that I would highly recommend anyone searching for a founder look for in their partner(s).

I have to admit I like Jeff, from his articles and such he seems to have a pretty clear way of thinking through big tech issues, and while he may sometimes surprise me with a 'lack of knowledge', I just remind myself that we all have gaps in our knowledge and at the end of the day, he's done some incredible work, and this 'lack' hasn't hurt him much (maybe it caused him to take longer to get to where he is, but he still managed to get it done).

He seems pretty open about not knowing things, which I think is a really underrated trait.

I don't quite understand your first sentence. How can you learn anything new if you don't run into your own limits?

Ha! Good point... I was trying to get at this idea that some people are naturals and Jeff seems to be that type of person; for what he might lack in formal education - and hence may run into these 'limits' more than others might - he has other worthwhile traits that compensate or even compliment this perceived lack on his part.

For all we know it's his lack of knowledge that gives him an edge - he runs into something he doesn't get or hasn't been exposed too and dives in, eats it up because he needs to really know it. Compare that to a guy that takes a class on some esoteric aspect of coding, when he/she doesn't have any need to apply it, when they just care about getting a good grade - which person really has learned the material? Does the person that already learned it but didn't need it at the time have a really big advantage? They might work through the problem faster, so maybe that's the advantage - you save some time.

But I like the root of your point - one doesn't grow/learn without trying to hit their own limits and push past them. Good stuff man.

That makes sense.

Theres one big difference between real life and (undergrad?) CS classes: the discovery phase. In most classes, the solution is laid out for you or implied in some way. Algorithms classes generally just consist of following a spec outlined by the book/teacher.

But when you run across a problem in real life it doesn't tell you to use a specific algorithm to solve it. Because of this, finding the solution usually requires a deeper level of knowledge.

When I graduated, that was the scariest part for me. Sure, I knew a bunch of algorithms, but I didn't have much practice in discovering when to use them and applying them to problems.

Exactly - how to find answers to new problems is huge. That's probably the question that makes or breaks interviews I give to new programmers. If they can't tell me how they'll figure something out on there own, yeah not good. In fact, even just being honest and saying you'd not consider this and weren't sure would be fine too. But you'd be surprised how many people how no real answer or scramble something out that doesn't quite cover it.

The funny thing is - esp. depending on how old you are - it is incredible how much easier it is to learn/find answers now. Pre-google it was tough - I frequented Barns & Nobles often to see what new books had arrived, or just to go find an answer in a book I knew they had.

But I digress... google/stackoverflow/etc have all made our lives so much easier.

Baby steps are the way to start, and move forward, though don't think that's what you meant by "small feet". I think it's also important to have realistic, doable goals for "completion" that aren't "100%". This is because you'll learn more by getting feedback ASAP, and... nothing can ever be 100% complete, unless its scope is rigorously perscribed, as for a theorem.

I think the nerd community thinks that CS or math skills are the important skills and they drastically under value other skill sets.

Without a doubt.

The most important thing I learned in college was accepting/understanding criticism - not algebra or philosophy or how many moons orbit jupiter (all cool/good to know too btw).

Most other skills can be learned on your own. But think about how hard it is to learn to accept and understand criticism. If you receive it from your spouse, it usually causes a fight; or from a close friend or family member - ditto, also not good.

But being hammered in a peer-review style class where it would be somewhat absurd to think 'hey I'm right, my professor with 25+ years experience, not to mention the 15 other smart peers in my class, are all wrong'.

Of course there were always one or two people that really did think they were right and the professor/classmates were all wrong. They wonder why life is always so hard, and why the entire world is against them, never considering that it might be them having the problem, not the rest of us...

He also tends to pontificate on issues he's learned recently and doesn't understand completely a bit too often for my liking.

The other part of this though is that as a blog author, he has a desire and incentive to write about things that his readership might be interested in; so I have a feeling there is a certain amount of extra explaining, citations, and feigned not-understanding going on in his posts.

Simpler explanation: he uses his blog as a way to document and reason through stuff that interests him.

I agree that autodidacts generally have gaps.

However, I would point out that formally trained people also have gaps. Just different ones that everyone is used to. The gaps of autodidatics stand out because they are unusual.

Autodidacts in general also have some strengths that are rare with formally trained people. (I don't have anything particular in mind. Just they spend their time with some different focusses and are bound to pick up some things that people who all follow the same curriculum didn't.)

So, yes autodidacts have some gaps, but this shouldn't be seen as a criticism.

Maybe he built SO both due to the amount he knows and he doesn't. Build a website with your knowledge so that you can learn what you don't know.

The fact that he's the public face shouldn't make you think that he "built" it.

Whenever I hear something like this I feel compelled to ask - can you please provide some concrete examples of what you are referring to?

I admit I only ever thought the point of this technology was to succeed often enough to be annoying (why use a copyrighted clip if my video might get banned and I have to go fix it).

The problem of matching up arbitrary degraded video to source video in polynomial time seems genuinely hard to me too.

I'm guessing it's a similar problem to matching up degraded audio to song title. If you haven't tried this, the Shazam app on the iPhone does this with surprising reliability (at least from my car speakers).

I recall seeing a paper on how Shazam does their magic (ha!). Something to do with "fingerprinting" the audio in such a way that is resilient to background noise (that also can be indexed and searched very quickly). I imagine that a similar strategy to identify video would also work.

Why do you say this? I'm not seeing the connection to the blog article.

Can anyone on here speculate on how you might even start with this? Even using their heat map system, you'd have to run that same test on every frame (every few frames maybe) of every piece of copyrighted content uploaded. I don't consider myself a brilliant programmer, but I wouldn't even know where to begin on doing something like this at scale.

Maybe you could index key parts of the frame and use that to narrow it down bit by bit (pun probably intended)? So confused...

Here's a starting point, how to do it with music: http://www.redcode.nl/blog/2010/06/creating-shazam-in-java/

You chunk a song into small segments and create a sort of "fingerprint" for each piece using Fourier analysis or similar. (So a song segment is represented by a frequency histogram, similar to this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/svartling/4229109164/ ) The fingerprints are stored in a DB.

To match a song fragment, chunk and analyze it in the same way. For each segment, find the closest match in the database. If most of the closest matches belong to the same song, and appear in the same order as in the song fragment you are trying to find, you have a match.

Creating fingerprints from a series of video segments is roughly similar, Fourier can be used for 2D images as well.

Doing it like this, you can reduce the volume of data you need to compare against with several orders of magnitude. Scaling to YouTube volumes is still hard, but that's the sort of scaling a company like Google already has plenty of experience in.

What about slowed down or sped up video? The chunks would be of different size, I suppose cropping would be less of a problem as it would still match up best to the same movie. The shazam paper may have covered this but I read it a lot time ago, can't remember.

I don't know how YouTube does it in practice, but you could either

- make the chunks small enough that they are essentially static images (one or a few frames)

- use some form of dynamic chunking where a chunk lasts until the image is sufficiently different according to some metric.

In both cases the chunks are fairly resistent to changes in speed, and the worst you need to deal with is that multiple chunks in clip A may map to the same chunk in clip B.

it's some sort of fuzzy hashing technique. you have to run through every frame of every video and compute a number that represents that frame. to make the match approximate you have to come up with a hash function that is resilient to small changes, either by throwing away information or by some other means. then you have to store this fingerprint of the frame. then every time someone submits a video you compute the fingerprints of the frames and check against the ones already in your database. Each check is constant time since it's a hash table. If any/enough frames match, label it as a copy!

This may be related to some form of perceptual hashing: http://www.phash.org/

Interesting side point: in building their ability to "fight" copyrighted material, YouTube is amassing one of the largest libraries of digital videos ever created. I'd be interested in hearing about this, and whether it really is bigger than any other video library.

Edit: Also would be interesting to hear how many content-owners choose to block video uploads vs. add advertising.

looks like a foundation for a B2B (web)service from Youtube: request - digital signature of content (Shazam or other) response - results of search against the library.

It's a good point - that means a select group of youtube engineers have access to a roughly comprehensive collection of digital media. I'd be interested in hearing about their mp3 collections ;)

It seems that Jeff didn't try to read:


Otherwise he would see how easily his 90 seconds segment of the film can't be treated as the fair use:

"In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a news article's quotation of approximately 300 words from former President Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir was sufficient to constitute an infringement of the exclusive publication right in the work"

We need to be very careful here. You may want to read the Wikipedia entry that talks about this specific case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_%26_Row_v._Nation_Enterp...).

There are some VERY important points about this ruling. The judges ruled that this 300 words violated right of first publication. These quotes were effectively taken and printed PRIOR to publication of the book, and materially damaged the authors.

From Wikipedia: "The purpose or character of the use was commercial (to scoop a competitor), meaning that The Nation's use was not a good faith use of Fair Use in simply reporting news."

This is equivalent to PopStar X about to release a groundbreaking song that they are going to premiere on MTV and then VH1 gets a copy from an intern and plays 30s of it before MTV does. The court is saying that you can't claim Fair Use here... I think this is fair and reasonable.

I agree about that case.

However back to the wikipedia Fair Use article: "(...) the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use." and regarding the use of samples: "Samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation.""

His 90 seconds clip of the movie is the 100% of his video "creation" and is also a clearly "recognizable sample."

Finally "To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new."

It's really hard for him to claim fair use, knowing how fair use is judged in court practice. There's huge difference in our idea of fair and what's considered "fair use" in the current law practice, which makes precedence.

I don't know how their system really works, but surely they extract features from the video and index the hell out of it. So they are not actually comparing frames of video here. With clever features and a good index you can rule-out millions of videos with very small amounts of computation.

It's impressive but it is the same idea as the normal text index. You could say it's mind boggling that Google searches through every document in 0.2 seconds, but they don't really search through them, they do lookups in an index.

Right, but they match words against words more or less. This matches even if the video is degraded, cropped, etc. They have figured out how to apply stemming concepts to video and audio.

Approximate matching of images/video/audio is not new to Google's system. Google's system is certainly an impressive application of this stuff, though.




Now imagine your Google TV examining what you're watching, and checking that you're correctly licensed to view it.

Since that's not among the features of Google TV, why not just say FutureTV instead? Or indeed TiVo or your DirectTV set-top box? I'm sure this was not your intention but you might be unfairly giving the impression that GoogleTV is anti-user, when in fact there is no evidence that this is the case.

Because Google is the one that is closest to having the code and data to make it happen. However, I bet it is more likely to happen on an AppleTV first. They have a stronger history of kowtowing to the media industry (and, boy, it has worked well for them!).

My set-top box already does that.

I'd be worried to have such functionality baked into a mainstream OS. That'd definitely be a deal breaker for me.

It doesn't compute to me that a feature you call a deal-breaker can be found in a device you already own, but ok.

Sorry, I guess I should have been more specific. I don't have much of a choice when it comes to my set-top box. I was thinking more along the lines of desktop operating systems. At this point, OSX/Linux/Windows are roughly replacements for each other (Linux/Windows moreso than OSX/Windows), and such a "feature" in one would give me great reason to migrate to another.

Then again, if there was an application/feature that was a must have for me in said OS, I might stay anyway. It's not an absolute.

I wasn't talking about any Google TV project in particular, but about a hypothetical one 5-15 years in the future.

Why couldn't Jeff host the video himself?

Isn't the point of a video sharing site so you don't have to worry about the overhead of transcoding, building a player, and distributing/debugging your videos?

It's not an unreasonable suggestion. The reason YouTube has this filter in place is because their business model does not allow them to handle the issues with humans -- likewise for the complaint form Jeff filled out.

Thus, while YouTube eliminates overhead, it exposes you to mistreatment by algorithms. If this tradeoff is a problem, hosting the file yourself is a viable alternative.

Why should video be any different from images? I wouldn't consider putting my sites images on imgur, why should I put videos on Youtube?

Because simply "the point of a video sharing site is so you don't have to worry about the overhead of transcoding, building a player, and distributing/debugging your videos". Video formats on the web aren't as standardized as images, at least till html5 catches on, and then there is again a controversy bt. webm and h264.

Well yea it's easier, but if you don't agree with YouTube's fair use policy it's really not that hard to host it yourself. There are tons of swf players out there.

From SX: it is when you have 130,000 daily readers. 130,000 times ~20 megabytes is ~2.5 gigabytes of bandwidth in a day. I guess that's not so terrible for a few days based on the Amazon S3 cost calculator -- but over the long run, I'd have to pull the video for fear it getting hard-linked elsewhere. - Jeff http://webapps.stackexchange.com/questions/6445/web-video-sh...

So if you want to claim "fair use" you have to pay for the bandwidth instead of having google pay for it for you. Seems more then fair.

I'm torn on this issue. If you watch the TED video referenced in the blog post, the YT representative speaks about the JK wedding video [1] as a vehicle for getting the Chris Brown song back onto the charts. She also points out that The Office "parodied" the video for their season finale. I'm seeing a bit of a disconnect here - it's as though she's making an argument to the studios and record labels: let users make use of your content and you'll get free ideas for TV shows and better sales of old songs. Aside from getting on talk shows and raising a small sum for charity, what did the wedding party receive for their creative efforts copied verbatim by The Office?

Perhaps an alternate strategy would be the following: a fixed dollar amount of revenue generated would go to the copyright owner to cover a licensing cost for the content in question, with any additional amount going to the creative individual(s) who in all likelihood have a fair use of the content in the first place. The YT rep speaks of culture and joy, but watching others benefit financially from one's creative efforts is the surest way to smother such expression.

[1] - http://www.jkweddingdance.com/

This is why I don't watch movies anymore or read anything but the classics. Why fill your brain with images and thoughts you're not allowed to make reference to without paying someone. Why not just watch all your movies on YouTube, even if they are crappy homemade ones, at least you'll be able to make reference to them later.

Basically, I never let my thoughts get owned and polluted by restrictive copyright owners, especially when it comes to entertainment.

Let's not be silly. You're allowed to reference whatever you want. You're allowed to quote whatever you want.

The open question is: how long of a quote is permissible before you exceed "fair use"?

See: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1702783

It was already ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court that 300 words taken from 300 words from 200,000 word material IS an infringement. That's only 0.15 %. Here if the movie was 2 hours and he took 1.5 minutes, that's 1.25 %.

You're over-reading the Supreme Court case. They said that in that particular case, 300 words from a 200,000 word book was an infringement. That doesn't mean that all 300 word quotes are necessarily infringing.

There are criteria for judging "fair use"; Jeff refers to them in the article. All require judgment, and in the end, if both parties want to push it far enough, it is a judge who will decide how a particular case meets the criteria.

I fully agree that based on that case we can't establish the unique amount of percentage of the material. But also note how little of material can be considered infringement: The article I linked contains much more criteria than Jeff presented and has even more dramatic quote: in music "samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation."" I can imagine that for usage of the video material the court can be as much restrictive as for music.

Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact