Can I make a sports compilation on Youtube using clips from various broadcasts? I would like to create a "Top 10"-style compilation of clips from a sports event that I particularly enjoyed watching some weeks ago. Since there are literally thousands of content creators on Youtube who publish such highlight reels on a regular basis, without any mention of permission from the broadcasters, I thought I could do it as well. However, it slipped into my mind that doing so would not necessarily be "fair use" legally speaking as I am neither criticizing nor educating anyone, nor is it for purely "personal" use. On the other hand, such a compilation has a "journalistic" nature, i.e., it shows the best moments from a match, or the worst fails from an event. Am I committing copyright infringement by uploading a sports compilation on youtube? If the answer to the above question is "yes", can someone explain to me how those thousands of compilation content creators get away with their videos, even as they're monetizing them?
Unfortunately, the "but everyone does that" (BEDT) argument doesn't hold water as evidenced by prosecutions of looters. Would uploading this video be a copyright infringement? It would be hard to answer this part of the question without knowing where and from whom the clips had come from. If the clips came from a company like ESPN or a YouTuber that doesn't give you permission to be able to use their clips then yes this might be a copyright infringement. If you use video/clips that are labeled as creative commons then nt it wouldn't be an infringement. YouTube has a feature for this. Would my actions be fair use? First, we'll need to understand what fair-use is. Fair use is the ability to use copyright material under certain circumstances without permission. To best determine if using copyright-protected material in your work you should weigh it against the four factors of fair use. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; The nature of the copyrighted work; The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. More information about fair-use here Youtube outlines their fair use guidelines here
&quot;Personal use only&quot; does not excuse copyright infringement under US law. The uploader does not hold copyright, and neither gives nor denies permission to copy his creation. The law does not require a copyright holder to deny permission, it requires the user to actually obtain permission. So no matter how you slice it (even as fair use) it is infringement for you to copy that video.
It is any law protecting me from the people that distrubute a video of me falling the stairs and shared without my permision? No. Your permission is not necessary for distributing or watching that video. The recording was from your workplace, where your entitlement to privacy is quite limited unlike few settings such as (1) your attorney's office in the course of obtaining legal advice for which the disclosure was needed, or (2) your home. Even if such an entitlement existed, your decision to share that recording with the person who was with you generally constitutes a waiver of your right to privacy regarding that incident. The waiver would apply even if California had some legislation akin to the EU's GDPR. Your description nowhere indicates that that person had a statutory or equitable duty of confidentiality. It is also highly doubtful that you would wish to block the distribution of the video if people instead of mocking you expressed something pleasant or encouraging to you. people who I don't even know their names come to me to comment about the video and joke about not falling again. That is not unlawful in and of itself. Since the matter does not involve a protected category such as sex, race, religion, or disability, pursuing a claim of hostile work environment would be quite a stretch. It would also be futile because any relief would not cover outsiders who watch the video and feel like joking about it. The notion of harassment entails a pattern of conduct (meaning that a person engages twice or more in that conduct) that causes a reasonable person to feel annoyed or concerned for his safety. Even if someone engages makes a few jokes that cause you to get annoyed, any petition for restraining orders seems unlikely to succeed. Sooner rather than later, the jokes will get old and people will move on.
The subtitles would be protected by copyright, in general. In the US, temporarily downloading the subtitle text to create statistics would, I think, constitute a fair use. It is transformative, it does not serve as a substitute for the original sub titles, and it does not harm the market for the film or for the sub titles. The existence of the API for the subtitles might or might not be evidence for fair use, depending on who supplied the data and under what terms. In other countries that have an exception to copyright for analysis and criticism, such a download might be held to come under such an exception. One cannot be sure until there is case law on the point, and I know of none. The ruling might be different in different countries. Statistics (words and their counts) about the subtitles for a particular film or video would be facts, and as such would not be protected by copyright at all. A text discussing those facts would be protected.
To do so I used some images and Gifs which may be under copyright but since I don't earn money for myself and there is no company backing me I was hoping that there is some protection for private persons like me who just want to showcase the project. Sorry. If your website is public facing (i.e. not password protected and available only to family and close friends), you need to follow copyright law. There is no exception to copyright just because a project is run by an individual for non-commercial purposes. I am also insecure about the GDPR regulations since I give users the ability to create an account and try it out. Your profile says you're in the EU. Then you need to comply with the GDPR. Is there any way to protect me against greedy lawyers and companies? Could I write something like: "This website is a peace of art" and save myself with arguments like "artistic freedom" or "free speech"? Nope. A controversial website run by Peter Sunde had at one point a "free speech" disclaimer (similar to the one you propose) posted. However, Sunde did never use this defense in court: Finnish court slaps Peter Sunde with €350k fine. If he had shown up in court, I am pretty sure the court would have told him that such a disclaimer has no legal merit. The only protection that will make you completely safe is to adhere to the law.
This appears to be very clear to me: "NPR does not allow other websites to post our content..." I cannot think of a more clear way to say "Do not reproduce our content on your site." Since you asked about licensing the right to reproduce their content, and they flatly ignored your request, I think it is safe to assume that they are not interested in licensing that right to you, even for a fee. This is also consistent with their "NPR does not allow [any] other websites to post..." language. It is always the copyright holder's right to refuse to offer any particular person (or all persons generally) a license, no matter what payment they might offer. (With the exception of statutory licenses, which in the U.S. exist only for recording covers of musical works.) They have also ignored your request to recompense them for infringement already performed. If in the future they decide to take legal action against you for your past infringement (hugely unlikely that such a hassle would be worthwhile for NPR) or seek any out of court settlement (again, quite unlikely they will care enough), I'm sure they will let you know. As they've said in their email, you are welcome to link to NPR's content. You are, of course, not welcome to spread misinformation or lies about NPR by claiming something like, "Look at this wonderful article that NPR wrote purely for us, at our personal request," or "NPR thinks that In Home Teaching Agency XXX is a great company, so we built a curriculum around their content," when NPR has never said any such thing. Any legal issue around linking would probably be a trademark offense, by wrongfully suggesting that NPR endorses you, or by misrepresenting yourself as an agent of NPR. If you don't do either of things, and just say, "Here's an article on [subject X] published by NPR," you're probably fine. If you want to be very thorough, you could include a disclaimer on your site like, "In Home Teaching Agency XXX is not a licencee or partner of NPR. Links to NPR articles are included for educational purposes only," or similar. This seems pretty excessive to me, since a reasonable person won't assume that linking to an article from a major news source suggests a partnership, but I suppose it couldn't hurt to include such a disclaimer.
I presume from the fact that you mention &quot;fair use&quot; that you're interested in United States law. In that case, the answer is a clear-cut &quot;no&quot;. 17 USC 107: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Let's look at your proposed use under these four factors: The purpose of use: Commercial use, selling these movie clips for direct profit. You're not making any sort of transformative use (such as critical commentary), you're just re-using them as is. Big strike against you. The nature of the copyrighted work: a work of fiction; your derivative is also an entertainment product. Another big strike. The portion used: I haven't seen the clips in question, but you mention &quot;famous scenes&quot;. That would work in your favor if you were using the clips for something like scholarship, but since you're not, the fact that these are the &quot;important parts&quot; works against you; the fact that they're small is irrelevant. The effect on the potential market for the copyrighted work: This is a huge strike against you: your clips are directly displacing licensed use of the movie clips. If I were a movie company and I caught you doing this, I'd bring out the big guns: I'd sue you for every penny you earned, plus substantial penalties, plus lawyer fees, plus everything else I could think of. And given the strength of the case against you, it's virtually certain you'd lose. You might be tempted to compare what you're doing to animated-gif &quot;image macros&quot;, but there's one major difference: the &quot;macros&quot; are generally used to compare a movie situation to an out-of-movie situation, making at least a gesture in the direction of transformative use and commentary. By pre-packinging your gifs, you're not commenting on anything. Your only option for making what you're doing legal is to go to the copyright owners and ask for permission.
Probably not. It sounds like you've copied the complete work without any meaningful transformation. You've reduced the market for the original work by hosting your own copy. The fact that your purpose &quot;is to share the information&quot; doesn't really do you any good, as that is also the purpose of the original work. You're almost certainly outside fair-use territory. If you're looking for a &quot;kosher&quot; way to do this, the generally accepted practice is to link to the article and either paraphrase or excerpt the most relevant portions. That said, the fact that this piece came from a university may help you out. If it's a public university, it may be that its &quot;news&quot; articles are actually public records and not protected by copyright. For more information on how to run a fair-use analysis, see the answer here.