Length of movie clip for fair-use? Is there some maximum length of a movie clip that can be publicly shared as "fair use?" E.g., the Youtube channel Movieclips shows clips with an average length of 2:30.
NOTE: This answer assumes jurisdiction in the US. No. Length does not determine whether or not something is fair use or not. There was a court case (Harper &amp; Row v Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), all credit to Dawn) where it was determined that just a few paragraphs from a 300+ page biography were infringing content, due to them capturing the "heart of the work". As user6726 said, in your example the clips you mentioned are most likely licensed. Also, courts tend to look poorly on things that are simply "shared" claiming fair use against copyright claims. Now, if you were to use a short clip as an example of something you were explaining, teaching, or critiquing, that would be different and would more likely be fair use. It is important to note that there is (by design) not a clear cut line if something is or is not fair use. There is a set of guidelines, but determination is made on a case by case basis There are a couple of cases that it is out and out NOT fair use, but none for fair use. This is because fair use is an affirmative defense, which is to say, you admit to the offense, but claim an exception to the rule. Self-defense as a defense to charges of homocide, assault, etc. works in a similar manner.
Copyright does not protect facts. If you use the media article as a source for facts, but restate them in essentially different words and with a different organization, you need no permission. Ethically you should cite your source, and attribute any brief quotes, but that is probably not legally required.
I believe the relevant section is 28 CFR 35.150 - Existing facilities § 35.150 Existing facilities: (a)General. A public entity shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This paragraph does not - Because of this, it seems theoretically possible that someone could complain that the youtube videos of lectures are not accessible enough to disabled persons, and therefore have them taken down. Regardless, it seems that UC Berkley decided to preemptively take down the videos in order to &quot;reset&quot; their online lectures catalogue and make large improvements. But yeah, nothing in the statute says they must take such videos down, but it would be a theoretical violation of the law to leave them up.
Unless the &quot;old&quot; movie is so old that its copyright has expired (prior to 1926 in the US currently, I believe, the precise rule varies by country) or it entered the public domain in some other way (unusual), it is protected by copyright. One may use part of a copyrighted work only with permission from the copyright owner, unless an exception to copyright applies. Exceptions to copyright vary significantly from country to country In the US, the primary exception is fair use. This answer describes fair use is some detail. Fair use is defined by 17 USC 107. Whether something is a fair use is a highly-fact-driven determination., There is no clear bright line. Several factors must be considered, including at least the four= statutory factors. A short except, used in a transformative way, that does not harm the market for the original will often qualify as fair use, but details will matter. There is no specific length that qualifies a sound excerpt as fair use. For text, in the well known case of Harper v. Nation an excerpt of less than 300 words from a 500 page book was judged not to be fair use, because it was held to be &quot;the heart of the work&quot; and because its publication significantly harmed the market for the original (a paying contract was canceled because of the use). In other situations, much larger excepts have been held to be fair use. In some countries there is an exception to copyright known as &quot;fair dealing&quot; which is somewhat similar to fair use, but rather narrower and more restricted. Other countries have a list of specific exceptions (the law of India has more than 20 different exceptions). News reporting, criticism, commentary, and classroom use are common exceptions. In many countries, sampling is not covered by any exception, and permission is required. If an exception does not apply, and permission is not obtained, then using copyrighted content is copyright infringement. This is, in most cases, a tort, meaning that the copyright owner may sue the infringer. Such a suit may be brought in any country where infringing works are crested or distributed, and possibly in other countries as well. If the plaintiff (owner) wins, damages will be awarded. The rules for determining damages vary widely between countries, and the specific facts of the case will matter. To get a reliable opinion on whether a specific use qualifies under an exception to copyright, or requires permission, one would do well to consult a lawyer with copyright expertise. Or one could simply ask for permission from the copyright holder. For a publicly released movie, finding the copyright owner should not usually be too hard. The owner may say yes or no, or ask for a fee or other conditions. If the owner simply ignores a request for permission, that must be taken as a &quot;no&quot;. For this kind of use, an owner is free to reject or ignore requests for permission if it so chooses. (In the US, cover versions of songs are subject to a compulsory license under certain conditions.)
No, one cannot safely assume that because some people have done a thing without being sued, that it is OK to do a similar thing and no suit is possible. It is possible that people who upload a video, or a section of it, have permission. It is perhaps more likely that the copyright owner does not choose to sue, for whatever reason. But a different owner of a different video might make a different choice. Uploading a video, or even a section of a video, without permission, will be copyright infringement, unless an exception to copyright such as fair use or fair dealing applies. Such an infringement gives the copyright owner valid grounds to bring a suit. But the owner can choose whether or not to sue. An owner can sue in one case of infringement but not in another, for any reason or none. If the expected damages are small, it many not be worth the time, trouble, and costs to sue. In the US, one must register a copyright before bringing suit for infringement of that copyright, and there is a fee for registration. Some owners feel strongly about the use of their work, and will sue on any pretext. Some may prefer to tacitly support uses that they approve of by not bringing suit. One cannot tell the attitude of a particular owner unless that owner has stated what his or her view is. Short films are just as protected as full-length feature films, and suit can be filed for infringing the copyright on a short film. But the more expensive a film was to make, and the more money the owner expects it to earn, the more likely it is that the owner will choose to sue. Many people infringe by uploading short films or videos, gambling that the copyright owners will never learn of this, or will not trouble to sue. Sometimes such infringers are correct, and sometimes they get sued. I do not understand what the OP means by the part of the question that reads &quot;There should be more detail and complex lines over here&quot; What additional detail is wanted? Who does the OP expect to provide it? What sort of &quot;lines&quot; does this refer to?
From the legal code of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license (emphasis in the original): 1.a Adapted Material means material subject to Copyright and Similar Rights that is derived from or based upon the Licensed Material and in which the Licensed Material is translated, altered, arranged, transformed, or otherwise modified in a manner requiring permission under the Copyright and Similar Rights held by the Licensor. For purposes of this Public License, where the Licensed Material is a musical work, performance, or sound recording, Adapted Material is always produced where the Licensed Material is synched in timed relation with a moving image. 1.b Adapter's License means the license You apply to Your Copyright and Similar Rights in Your contributions to Adapted Material in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Public License. 1.f Licensed Material means the artistic or literary work, database, or other material to which the Licensor applied this Public License. 2.a Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, the Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, non-exclusive, irrevocable license to exercise the Licensed Rights in the Licensed Material to: 2.a.1.A reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part; and 2.a.1.B produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material. 2.a.5.B You may not offer or impose any additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material. 3.a.4 If You Share Adapted Material You produce, the Adapter's License You apply must not prevent recipients of the Adapted Material from complying with this Public License. In short, if the original is CC-BY, you can license derivative works under whatever terms you want, so long as the license of the original work is not infringed by the new terms for the derived work. In particular, ordinary copyright (aka. &quot;all rights reserved&quot;) is a perfectly acceptable copyright for a derivative of a CC-BY work (but the original credits should be included -and augmented- in order to also comply with the original CC-BY). Also note this doesn't restrict anybody's rights to use the original material under the original license. The other non-ShareAlike license that permits derivative works (Attribution-Noncommmercial) has a different version of clause 2.a.1.B: produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for NonCommercial purposes only. so any license of a derivative work cannot permit commercial use of the original work. It may be possible to permit commercial use of those portions of the derivative that can be separated from the original; this gets into an extreme edge case of copyright law and you'll probably want to consult a lawyer if you find yourself in such a situation. Another way to consider this issue is by noting that you are only licensing your modifications. For example, if you add a mustache to a CC-BY portrait and use a CC-0 license, only your mustache is CC-0; you can't eliminate the original author's requirement of attribution this way. The derived work would still have to be used under a CC-BY license (or compatible).
The length of a literary work doesn't determine if its use is fair use. Copyright does not cover names, titles of works, catchwords/catchphrases/advertising slogans etc. or lists of ingredients (like in a recipe or chemical instructions), however, the procedure can be copyright. The work must also be original. If the tweet copies something that already exists then there is no copyright in the tweet - if the thing that is copied has copyright protection then the tweet itself may be a violation. That said, assuming that the Tweet enjoys copyright protection, the owner will be the author: presumably the owner of the Twitter account. For anyone else to legally use it, the use must be either: Licensed by the copyright owner Fair use (USA) or Fair Dealing (most everywhere else in the English speaking world) For Item 1, the Twitter terms of service say: You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed). In case you don't know what that means, Twitter gives you this plain English summary: Tip: This license is you authorizing us to make your Tweets on the Twitter Services available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same. So, you can get permission from the copyright holder or from Twitter. Well, Twitter has given permission: Except as permitted through the Twitter Services, these Terms, or the terms provided on dev.twitter.com, you have to use the Twitter API if you want to reproduce, modify, create derivative works, distribute, sell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, or otherwise use the Twitter Services or Content on the Twitter Services. Providing you use their API, you can "reproduce, modify, create derivative works, distribute, sell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, or otherwise use the ... Content ..." Therefore, fair use/dealing considerations are irrelevant.
The "Standard Youtube License" or TOS reads You shall not copy, reproduce, distribute, transmit, broadcast, display, sell, license, or otherwise exploit any Content for any other purposes without the prior written consent of YouTube or the respective licensors of the Content. That stipulates no "free usage" and as such, you cannot use a screenshot ("Content") without permission or license from the copyright owner anywhere in your own work or on a platform such as Wikipedia that requires permissions from the copyright owner. You are legally OK with (preferably written) approval and license from the creator for use of a screenshot on Wikipedia, because such an written agreement will satisfy Wikipedia's requirement of owner approval for the use of another creator's work on Wikipedia and gives you written permission and license to use the work on Wikipedia. Simply contact the copyright owner and ask for permission. If you do not have the owner's permission and still use a screenshot, and are confronted with copyright infringement by the owner or Wikipedia, your use of a screenshot may fall under Fair use. The important qualifier is may. You being able to prevail with a Fair use defense - worst case, if taken to court, or at very least, Wikipedia taking down the screenshot under a DMCA request - is not guaranteed, because a judge would make that decision, based on the evidence of the usage and their determination if, in fact, a screenshot is Fair use. Fair use (Chapter 1 - Circular 92 | U.S. Copyright Office) stipulates that usage is legally permissible when (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole is not considered to be substantial enough is an infringement of copyright of the whole work. Who determines what is what is "substantial enough"? A court. The court could take into account (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. in determining your usage is Fair use, or damages if the court rules against you. You do risk copyright infringement without clear permission from the copyright owner, and you risk Wikipedia being send a DMCA takedown notice. Whether or not you are the subject of a copyright infringement lawsuit is up to the copyright owner, and if that happens, whether you prevail is up to the court.