Copyright, Exceptions, and Fair Use: Crash Course Intellectual Property #3
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 05. 2015
- Stan Muller teaches you a few things about copyright enforcement and talks about the exceptions to copyright enforcement. While there are several, the one you've probably heard of is Fair Use, and it's a pretty tricky one. We'll try to explain it and teach you just why fair use is so loosey-goosey.
Citation1: 17 USC 503
Citation 2: Hargreaves, Ian. Digital Opportunity: A Review of Intellectual Property and Growth. UK Intellectual Property Office. P 5
Citation 3: Iowa State Univ. Research Found., Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., 621 F.2d 57 (2d Cir. 1980)
Citation 4: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 551, 105 S. Ct. 2218, 85 L. Ed. 2d 588 (1985) (quoting) Joseph McDonald, Non-Infringing Uses, 9 Bull. Copyright Soc'y 466, 467 No. 355 (1962)
Links We Promised:
Copyright Office Fair Use Index: copyright.gov/fair-use/
Best Practices Documents:
www.cmsimpact.org/fair-use/bes...
infringementnation.com
***
Thanks to the following Patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:
Mark Brouwer, Jan Schmid, Steve MarshallAnna-Ester Volozh, Sandra Aft, Brad Wardell, Christian Ludvigsen, Robert Kunz, Jason, A Saslow, Jacob Ash, Jeffrey Thompson, Jessica Simmons, James Craver, Simun Niclasen, SR Foxley, Roger C. Rocha, Nevin, Spoljaric, Eric Knight, Elliot Beter, Jessica Wode, Sofie Harning, Sour Bags & Totes, Don Phillips, Christian Dodson, Christian Dodson (once again), Christian Dodson (again), Christian Dodson (NO EDGE), tuseroni, Amy Guerrero
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Instagram - / thecrashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
Water aerobics probably isn't very good for a fresh tattoo
"Take not from others, to such an extent and in such a manner that you'd be resentful if they so took from you". I completely agree to that... And that's the rule I generally go by. For example, let's say I wanted to make an intro, and I found an awesome piece of music that lasted for 5 seconds, I'd use it without a doubt. If I created a song, and 5 seconds of it was used in someone's intro (but said where it was sourced), I'd be fine with it. Hell, I'd be fine with them using the entire song, as long as they don't try to claim it as theirs.
Jordan O'C The only problem with that guideline* is that it only works if society as a hole has a general, over arching consensus. Honestly, I don't think we have such a consensus and individual tolerance varies wildly.
I've known individuals who would take no offense to someone taking the shirt off their backs or the food off their tables - and others who wouldn't let someone dying of thirst drink from their tap.
From what I've found, content creators tend to run the same gambit - and it is from that basic disagreement that so much of our problems are generated.
*It's worthing noting that I think the more traditional golden and silver rules suffer the same issues.
I like your paraphrase of the Golden Rule. Unfortunately there is a different Golden Rule which is applicable to song copyrights, "He who has the gold makes the rules." Corporate lobbyists have influenced politicians over the years into making copyright laws and enforcement increasingly strict. Many CZcamsrs have received copyright claims or strikes over a few second snippet of a song in their video. I've even come across instances (e.g. Mumbo Jumbo's channel) of a copyright claim being issued over an unauthorized _sample_ embedded within a short snippet of a song the uploader otherwise has permission to use. It's kind of like a cop pulling you over for going one mile per hour over the speed limit; there are some individuals and groups who are so protective over their copyrights they will flag the smallest "unauthorized" use according to the strict letter of the law.
As someone previously stated, people (and corporations) have different levels of tolerance for creative reuse of their copyrighted works. If I were a musical artist, I'd be thrilled if someone used a five second clip of one of my songs in their intro as long as I was given credit. But there are artists who feel very differently. Prince for example was notoriously strict when it comes to copyright and others reusing content from his songs.
Thumbs up for each time you caught the little Mongol pop up in the background every time Stan said "exception".
I count 9 times throughout the video.
I didn't know what that thing was...thanks for I thought I was going crazier :D
@@LatonyaWilliams Haha! Yeah, it's a callback to the Crash Course World History series. Every time there's some broad global historical trend, somehow the Mongols manage to be an exception. It's like its own thing in that history series.
Finally, now I know the source of the Mongoltage! ^^
An INCREDIBLY interesting Crash Course series. One of my absolute favorites.
You knocked this one completely out of the park, Stan! I'm going to re-share this video within an inch of it's life. Everyone in the modern digital world should watch it. Thanks for all the hard work!
The most graceful end to a crash course episode ever.
Fair Use should not be used as a defense. It should be proven that a copyright infringement was not done in Fair Use. Meaning, a copyright owner must first proof Fair Use WAS NOT in play.
i want to make a clip vid of all my fav comedy bits of all time is that fair use?
Red seeds yes, but be careful, youtubes copyright system is broken
Exactly. Copyright on CZcams seems to have a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality that needs to go away
So to my understanding, explaining a plot hole in a TV series and showing clips from that series to explain my point would be considered fair use right? If so then please, explain that to Hasbro!
RodimusPrimal it should
How much money are you willing to dish out in order to get the lawyer to fight by your side?
silinsin
as long as you ask for permission
It should be fair use under American law as long as the clips are directly relevant to your commentary and show no more than what is necessary to illustrate your points. But a lot of big media companies will still claim _any_ video that features their content, regardless of fair use. They have the money to spend millions on hiring the best lawyers, and you most likely don't. Life isn't always fair.
Stan really REALLY needs to star in more future Crash Course series. This is awesome!
make a video on the legality of Let's Plays and how monetization fits into this
That would be a pretty simple video though. Most disputes over copyright in Lets Plays are either very black and white , a false claim or a technical error by CZcams.
***** Let's Plays/walkthroughs are almost always legal. Monetization of let's plays and walkthroughs are usually not, but getting the necessary permission from the publisher is not very hard
Take for instance Final fantasy 14 (support.na.square-enix.com/rule.php?id=5382&tag=authc) they give you a notice to stick in the video description, an say that "You may not sell the materials to third parties" (eg. youtube) "as original content", and "you may not use the materials to promote other commercial products" (eg. have advertising on your video).
so you may record and post the video as long as you have the copyright notice, and do not show ads with the content, so you may not monetize without permission.
what about a discussion on emulation of software you bought? there are people who'd argue that is legal
***** It is perfectly legal. reverse engineering a product is protected. Writing software that emulates the behavior of a piece of hardware is allowed as long as none of the original IP coding is used. that is to say, I can write a piece of code that acts exactly like an NES ROM chip, I can't copy the rom chip byte for byte and include it in my code and sell it. (in fact, i certainly can do such a t hing cause the NES patent is up, so you can make as many hardware clones of it that you want but that's not the point i'm trying to make :) )
As for the software that runs on videogame emulation, it's a bit more sticky. I can not distribute a game rom. I can't even download a game rom of a game that I personally own. But i AM allowed to copy a game rom to whatever format I choose and use it however I want.
***** If the software has any type of DRM, the DMCA makes it illegal to break that DRM (or to even tell how to break the DRM) even if you legally own the software. Before the DMCA existed, something like an emulator would probably have been perfectly legal, but enabling software to be used on devices that it was not made for is likely a violation.
I love the way you talk, so easy to understand different topics. Thanks!
As a beginning CZcamsr, this video - and this whole course - is fantastic! Thank you!
These are such interesting videos. And Stan is a really good and clear speaker. I think it sometimes gets a bit bogged down in terminology, but the first video in the series definitely suffered a lot more from that than this one and the previous.
Superb stuff - this video manages to make a potentially boring and annoying subject both informative AND hugely entertaining!
Stan, you explained it better than my Communication Law professor did in college. Bravo!
Water aerobics after getting a tattoo? worst idea ever. You don't get near a pool unless you want to catch an infection!
This video requires lots of research. Thanks for updating!
Reference Time:
The 1D poster in the background, I laughed when I saw Zayn was crossed out with a frown-y face. 0:42-0:53, also the vacuum bot, the thing he made last episode, Paper Towns, the Tardis,the magic eight ball, the crash course us history poster, talyor swift poster, oxy-clean poster, the angular fish.
0:58-1:05
A world history poster, a mongol statue (Do those exist, cause that would be cool If I could by one),, the Uncle Sam wants you to work for country with either Hank or John.
1:06-1:10:
I think that was some US presidents in the car in the window
1:41-1:46:
Emily in Pictures, His dog on vacuum bot.
1:47-201
Wheezy, Emily, Hank and Phil wearing a mongol mask at John Green's Birthday party, Also iPhone.
Also his dog is everywhere, even in the pool at his water aerobics class.
Man, I love the thought bubble.
That quotation at the end sound so poetic if not practical.
Great Job. We are impressed. Greetings from mexico. We ourselves try to educate the audience about copyright and you’re a great inspiration.
Thank you for your videos!!! Very informative and educative!
Awesome series guys. Keep up the great work.
Another really interesting subject, with a great speaker, thanks :)
An excellent video, very well explained.
One day I'm gonna be rich. Then I will finally support you guys on Patreon, to reward you for the much I've learned watching your videos (not only this serie, but History, Economics, etc.).
Grateful for all of this.
Keep up with the good work.
1:55 John Green's Birthday ft. Hank Green, Emily Graslie, Craig Benzine, and Phil Plait.
Great video. Excellent sense of humour
crash course ethics/philosophy would be amazing. one can dream
Katie H
It's here, 40+ episodes in.
i know i'm watching it too! so happy they did it
Thanks for the training!
You have inspired me. Fingers crossed that CZcams and Adsense approves me to move forward. Love your Buy CrashCourse merchandise. Serious high tech
Hi Stan - it would be great if you could cover plagiarism in music - who really owns copyright in a drum pattern, a chord progression, a melody of three notes? some decisions seems so arbitrary and inconsistent. and does it matter that 'stealing' from old songs tends to boost sales for the old song, not reduce it?
Thanks for the awesome information! Im a writer who wanted to know what I need to do to borrow ideas from other works. I’ll use the “transformative use” test, and run it by a copyright lawyer before submitting it to a publisher.
Please people! Do not get in a pool just after getting tattooed! Actually do not get in a pool until it is healed! XD
this is a great video thanks for sharing !!!!
I hope this guy will replace John Green in social and liberal arts courses. This video was the best in this course so far. Thanks for sharing the info.
I always had this question in mind: If i upload something that infriges copyright in Brazil, but the site that i uploaded is in the US, what copyright law goes: the Brazilian one or the Americn one?
If you're a Brazilian citizen or resident, you could get into trouble for uploading something that infringes copyright in Brazil, even if it does not do so in the U.S. If the copyright owner discovers that you're the uploader, they could file a lawsuit against you in Brazil. Even though you're placing the work on a foreign website and it is legal content where it is hosted, the fact remains that you're still guilty of infringement in Brazil because you had no legal right under Brazilian law to reproduce the content. But if you're an American with no connections to Brazil, you're not going to get into trouble because Brazilian courts have no jurisdiction over you. The site itself might get into trouble though if it has operations in Brazil or is merely accessible there. Project Gutenberg (a US based repository of public domain books) once got into trouble in Germany for hosting a book that is public domain in the US, but still under copyright protection in Germany. A German court ordered their entire website to be geoblocked for German users. I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, so anyone who is may correct me on any inaccuracies.
It ultimately comes down to two questions. 1: What country are you a citizen of, and 2: Does Brazil have what is known as a "copyright treaty" with the country you're a citizen of.
@@ZeldagigafanMatthew interestingly now I'm studying law here in Brazil, so I now the answer I guess lol
@@ZeldagigafanMatthew Just a little clarification on the second question. Nearly all of the world's countries have ratified and implemented the Berne Convention, which requires countries to recognize the copyrights in all member countries for a minimum of the life of the author + 50 years. So Brazil and most other countries do have a copyright treaty with the United States.
Unfortunately things get messy when it comes to older works near the end of their copyright term because some countries have extended the duration of copyright protection beyond the Berne minimum and others haven't. The United States also arbitrarily decided in 1998 to grant a fixed term of 95 years to all works published prior to 1978, unless they already entered the public domain through a failure to register or renew the copyright, but that's just an added layer of complication. Anyways, no other country does this because the life of the author + either 50 or 70 years is the standard nearly all other countries use. This means that some works will be public domain in Brazil, but still copyrighted in the United States, and vice versa. What matters here as far as copyright is concerned is the law in the particular country you're a citizen or permanent resident of. You don't have to dig deep into international treaty relations with Brazil to find out if a work by a Brazilian author is still copyrighted in the United States; you just have to consult American law and know when the work was first published. Any international treaty that requires a change in American law will result in the law being amended by Congress when the treaty is implemented. But if you're an American running a website which hosts a work published by a Brazilian author that is public domain in the United States and still under copyright protection in Brazil, then you may need to geoblock access to that work for visitors to your site with Brazilian IP addresses, just to be on the safe side.
*claps* this was great! It was so clear and informative
this is a very complex and important topic. It needs a lot of effort to understand.
awe stan, you're awesome, i love you
The thank you board at the end still uses the subbable heart! There is nothing wrong, it just makes a bit less sense here, but still I like to see that the logo has not gone to waste!
Really interesting, thank you.
3:11 anyone catch that in background!
Ahmed There's another one at 5:32, I wonder if there's more.
Caucasiafro Yeah, there seems to be one every time Stan says exception. :)
Caucasiafro 5:24, look at the plant. Also, 6:36, pillar
Brandon Saintonge the question now is: What is it ?
Caucasiafro there's one at 3:15 3:18 3:20 5:25 the one you said at 5:32 and one at 6:33.
Oh wow, this was great! Thanks!
Watched all 3 in a row today, thanks for making me laugh, and for all the info. I hope in the 3 years since you made this not much has changed in terms of the basics. I know USA copyright is about to change for the first time in decades, its about time for this new global service that will administer copyright law for the digital world
Why the heck would anyone dislike this? What's wrong with this world?
I love you Stan.
This is helpful, insightful and entertaining - a rare combination for legal issues! Thank you. (I was looking for templates of wording the "Fair Use Credit" at the end of an educational animation.)
Great video Stan. Thank you.
I am writing a self help book. Am I allowed to take something written on a psychology website and reword the terms and descriptions for my own use? Sounds like it would fall under fair use. Thanks
Thank you
6:32 There's another one behind the pillar.
Thank you.
Love the little mongol popping up all over in the background lol
Some end user argements take me a day to read. Apples I just gave up on, I don't even remember the start when I'm finished
Hi Stan,
First of all may thanks to your video.
I have a question. If I’m doing a cultural program for a news agency where I report on a story am I allowed to use some part of video footage or video (less than 30 seconds) from another news agency pertaining to that story?
For example, I want to make a short movie about Censer for some Radio Station and I want to use less than 30 seconds a video which is made by BBC. I also add new music and new story with my own voice and mix with many pictures which are allow to use and I have a copy rights for those picture, I want to know does it legal fair use and free copyright?
Awesome video!
I'm writing a paper on plagiarism and Is really helped me understand more. Thanks bae.
This is interesting. I'm current suing someone for stealing my facebook group that I spent 10 years building so I like this series.
Thanks for this series. Really caught my interest. You have my patronage.
Seventh like! I just want to thank my teacher. He has influenced me very deeply and I never thought I would be under ten likes. Thank you guys for reading my comments. I love you all. Thank you
I seem to remember learning somewhere that if the copyrighted work was incidental (like background music in a gym where you filmed your friend running or something) that also contributed to fair use?
Now I have to find a way to watch Hercules vs. The Mongols. Thanks Stan.
A single 140 character tweet and, depending on the length, a single Facebook post, would not be sufficient in length to contain a "modicum of originality" as the court held in Feist. So while it would be "fixed" for purposes of §102, there would not be the requisite originality in order for the work to be copyrightable. If its not copyrightable, its not subject to any of the exceptions or defenses. This is subject to change if there are numerous posts/tweets. An argument could be made that the works, in the aggregate, are copyrightable as a "compilation" under §103.
Also, following your tattoo hypothetical, under §109(c), "...the owner of a particular copy lawfully made under this title...is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to display that copy publicly...to viewers present at the place where the copy is located." As long as you can prove that you obtain that particular copy of the work/character lawfully, the "public display" on your arm would be a exception. That's a rather weak argument given that it is not the same "copy," but a reproduction. The stronger argument is that the "purpose and character of the use" (a tattoo) is transformative, non-commerical and not a market substitute for that character, thus weighing heavily in favor of fair use.
However, considering this is a "crash course," the rest of your video is on point. Full disclosure: I have a copyright final on Tuesday so this was a rather helpful exercise.
Anthony Ortiz I think the beginning of the video was more aimed at showing how infinitely broad copyright laws could affect our lives and why fair use is important. But goods points.
(Also have a copyright law final next week)
Now that Twitter has increased the character limit from 140 to 280 characters, it's no longer so clear that a single tweet is not sufficient in length to contain the necessary "modicum of originality" to meet the relatively low originality threshold for copyright to exist. As of April 2020, there is a case currently winding its way through the courts (Bell v. Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC) over an allegedly infringing retweet of a quote. Notably a judge refused to dismiss the direct infringement claim and allowed it to proceed to trial.
One has to be especially careful about tweeting or retweeting copyrighted photos or videos. In Goldman v. Breitbart News Network, 302 F. Supp. 3d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2018), federal district court judge Katherine Forrest wrote, "that when defendants caused the embedded Tweets to appear on their websites, their actions violated plaintiff’s exclusive display right; the fact that the image was hosted on a server owned and operated by an unrelated third party (Twitter) does not shield from this result."
Fascinating.
Helpful info.
Really great video. I am making a documentary film and want to use some CZcams clips of pet funerals, the context will be transformative in nature and will still fall under fair use. Would I have to give attribution on the clip itself or can I include it with the closing credits?
Now I need to go find "Hercules vs. the Mongols"
If anyone's read Sydney Padua's new book The Thrilling Adventures of Lovelace and Babbage (based on her webcomic), she makes a pretty convincing argument that she was able to find biographical information on Babbage that had been forgotten since the 1800's through Google Books and the ability to search through obscure collections of documents without needing to travel physically to pour over old archives of seemingly irrelevant documents. This effect could likely happen with more recent materials, and I think makes a really strong case for, at the very least, being able to upload nonfiction materials without significant transformation.
gave a thumbs up for the adventure time doodle.
I've got a question... Is a fan fiction not covered under fair use?
I would it be considered an transformative work if your making up a modified plot and adding characters that didn't exist before?
Please, I'll been wondering about this for years.
Can you legally use an entire copyrighted song in the background of your class presentation? It doesn't damage the copyright holder's profit or claim to the work, but it does borrow their work for your own "gain," if it can be called that...
Are there international copyright laws? What happens if a Brit uploads something that violates US copyright but not UK copyright? Whose laws do you go by?
Holobrine the laws are different in different countries. If you're in the US and break US copywrite you get prosecuted, if you're in britain and break US copywrite no one cares, unless they hate you enough to extradite you to the US to be punished.
Just like if you murder someone in the US and go to britain, you don't get punished for murder in britain, you get punished in the US
Holobrine I'm assuming they'll get into it eventually in this series; but yes, there is international copyright enforcement. Quite a few countries have agreed to enforce each others copyrights, this agreement is called the Berne Convention. There are countries that aren't part of this agreement--china, as an example--which causes a lot of tension during trade negotiations. Also, the US is very coercive in trying to get other countries to enforce the US's copyrights by placing trade restrictions on countries (this recently happened to Spain).
Holobrine While different countries have different specific laws, what generally happens is that it's in the best interests of countries with the largest marketable amounts of intellectual property (lobbying firms representing the distribution companies) to agree to laws which are generally compatible with one another. This is why there are international copyright agreements which more and more countries are signatories to, and why countries like the US, the UK, and Japan are heavily invested in promoting worldwide.
Bradley Callaway Given the increasingly low barrier for brining such cases, we are seeing more and more of this happen. Just like inter-state copyright claims have become more common (where you have to travel from your state to the one you are being sued in otherwise there is summary judgement), we are increasingly seeing companies bring suit against individuals in other countries who then have to either travel to the US or have a summary judgement against them. Granted at that point collecting can be difficult, but not impossible.
aberaham Yep. Not every country follows every aspect of the Berne Convention either. Good example is droit morale, the idea that the original creator retains moral rights to the presentation of their work, separate from economic rights. US copyright law does not incorporate these; laws in Canada and much of Europe do. These rights are not lost under Work for Hire, and must be explicitly waived in contracts.
The classic Canadian example is Snow v. The Eaton Centre Ltd. Artist Michel Snow created a sculpture of Canadian Geese for a Toronto Mall. The mall decided to decorate the geese with bows for Christmas. Artist, who did not sign away his moral rights, objected to this presentation, sued the mall to remove the decorations, and won.
Informative AND Funny
CrashCourse What the hell is that thing appearing from time to time behind the plant or behind that stand/column (like at 6:32 for example)?
It's the exception!
Or commonly known as the Crash Course Mongol!
So, retweeting is infringement? How is that possible if, when someone signs up for a service, they give up some rights to anything they post when it's not in a private setting?
I think here is the best way to post this question, is it ok for me to link videos of Crashcourse physics in a closed virtual learning enviroment? or am I violating any copyright law???
Thanks!
You guys fixed it ☺️☺️☺️
I need that Crash Course blanket. Make it a thing!
cmeflywva I second that motion!
Good video.
Noticed how none of the devices at 2:38 mark have no Home buttons or cmd symbol in the keyboard? They are considered to be trademarks, and cannot be used in a stock image.
I like Stan; that is all.
this is sooo helpful u have no idea
what happens when you use a remixed song tho
Great info, thank you!
FYI, looks like there's an ongoing lawsuit where a photographer is suit over someone getting a tattoo of one of their pictures, and the plaintiff seems to be winning, crazy. Looks up Sedlik v. Von Drachenberg No. CV 21-1102, 2022 WL 2784818 (C.D. Cal. May 31, 2022)
I would have thought that translating a song into another language and uploading a timed subtitle track with the audio would fall under the realm of transformative use, since it would bring the song to a wider audience than it could otherwise have reached. I'm not fully sure I understand how and why record labels make copyright claims against this sort of video.
Having Stan present is like The Beatles letting Ringo sing, just way better.
Is it possible for you to make a video series for copyrights of specific works? I want to make a comic series but the copyright law is so vague that i dont understand it at all and i dont want to do my paperwork wrong
Was just about to launch a new product on Amazon and the supplier informed me they changed the color of the product to avoid copyright. Is it that simple? Does that avoid copyright laws? I did check in advance for a copyright online and didn't see anything. Obviously, I needed to dig deeper.
Wow I have one of those video stores in my town!
If I have an idea I post on Patreon, but somebody else thought of the same idea in the past who owns the idea? For Example www.patreon.com/user?u=752487
Found the Answer in the copyright 'golden rule' quote at the end "take not from others to such an extent and in such a manner that you would be resentful if they so too took from you." In a way the quote means Love thy Neighbors right to intellectual property.
Copyright only protects the specific expressions of an idea, not the idea itself. On a generic level of basic story plots, character types, musical themes, artistic styles, etc. most ideas have already been done by someone else. You shouldn't feel guilty about using a basic or generic idea that has already been done, as long as you express it in your own unique way. Intellectual property law does protect via patents certain forms of ideas that when expressed as a tangible machine, product or process, have a functional purpose, but patent law is not something an artist, writer or musician needs to worry too much about.
One question regarding the "heart" of a product:
If someone wanted to make a review of a movie or videogame, are they allowed to tell spoilers?
One of the important takeaways from this video:
@ 6:14 "Anyway, 'fair use' is an 'affirmative defense', which means the defendant must show and prove that the use was 'fair' and not an infringement."
More information can be found here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
awesome
are so darn right!
Could you also include in the Info section the books that you refer to in your video?
thanks
Hey this is great.
I mean your video.
not the amount of infringement I’m possibly liable for.
Any use of any copyrighted work where it is not done for profit should be considered fair use. This would save a TON of copyright issues that pop up. The only infringement lawsuits that should be valid are the ones where someone was trying to make money off someone's intellectual property. All that is needed is a simple redefinition of "fair use".
There are still 50 blockbuster videos in the United States. Two of them are in Fairbanks Alaska.
What if you choreograph a dance to a song? I've seen so many choreography videos..would this be protected under fair use?
What about CZcams Channels like "Subtitled Trailers"? I am deaf and would like to start a organization that posts captioned versions of trailers and other short form video content onto CZcams to make these videos accessible to Deaf audiences (this is a serious problem by the way, despite the laws in place). To me, this appears to be in alignment with providing braille versions of books. What do you think?
Have you considered updating this?