Since a 2007 legal duel against Viacom, YouTube has been trying to prevent users sharing copyrighted content. While many copyrighted videos have been left alone, YouTube blocks, claims, or removes others altogether, even if they could qualify as fair use. Many dislike YouTube blocking copyrighted content that is uploaded within fair use limits because it quietly censors media reviews, has an overly simplistic presumption that everyone who uploads copyright content must be trying to steal or make money off of it, and leaves certain obscure shows essentially lost.
However, fair use doctrine is for historical value, parody and criticism, and education.
It is technically legal (in terms of U.S. copyright law and fair use) to edit and repost excerpts of shows for parody and criticism, but presently it is not wise to do so because of YouTube's copyright strike system. By definition, these edits do not replace the original work and attempt to distinguish themselves from it, but the copyright holders or YouTube may file automated copyright claims or even sue. Edits of shows are funny until the uploader receives a copyright strike. On YouTube, there is a stringent copyright system, as follows.
1. If a user uploads part of a copyrighted item (seen in Content ID) and YouTube flags it, the first time is simply a warning because they assume the user just made a mistake.
2. The next time this happens, the user loses uploading ability for some time, attains a copyright strike, and has to take the Copyright School quiz as a result.
3. The next time, the punishment is worse.
4. The final time is the third copyright strike and results in the user's account being terminated, losing everything on it.
Fair use may allow someone to add copyrighted work strictly for "transformative works" roles to their video without getting in legal trouble. Media reviewers use short footage from video games and movies for criticism. Besides telling you whether the game is good or not, reviewers may post videos about hyped-up DLC (downloadable content) or updates to internet-based games and see if the new content lives up to expectations. It is much better to watch a review featuring the pros and cons of media than to buy it on impulse. The same can be said for a parent who screens a show or game to see if it is family-appropriate before investing in it. This mirrors Siskel and Ebert's At the Movies, where they used licensed footage to give new movies some context and discuss their opinions on them. Many YouTube media reviewers earn ad revenue from their videos, another parallel to Siskel and Ebert.
In addition, fair use doctrine has an educational piece that would apply well to many shows. Some people have VHS recordings of educational shows they watched when they were little. To preserve the shows and share good morals with others, they upload these to YouTube.
The more conservative, pre-2019 version of Arthur is a good example of how others’ uploads can be helpful. Each episode contains two brief, completely separate cartoon segments, which are edited together to fit timeslot requirements. Therefore, an episode is formatted as "Segment A/Segment B" (e.g., "When Carl Met George/D.W. Swims with the Fishes"). If PBS HQ bans one story, the other segment also disappears from member stations.
Several segments of Arthur were pulled from the national PBS lineup once a partnered segment in their same episode became too controversial due to Lance Armstrong cheating in cycling races and yet being portrayed in a "role model" manner. The producers didn't know about the scandal or Armstrong cheating; therefore, their public relations response was to remove the segments. "The Great MacGrady" episode was completely redone to avoid more Armstrong-based controversy for Arthur, but PBS left other banned segments behind, likely because animating or redubbing audio takes a long time and it's better to move on to new shows. Here are some of the non-controversial but randomly cut segments: "Operation D.W" (ear surgery) and "The Frensky Family Fiasco" (problem solving). These closing Arthur segments (unconnected to Armstrong) haven't aired in years because, for all these episodes, the opening segments praised Lance Armstrong. YouTube preserves these forgotten segments, plus every full pre-2019 Arthur episode, and the traditional values shown. This appears legal under fair use history and education clauses.
Some TV show producers provide episodes to YouTube themselves but place them under paywalls for copyright reasons; this tactic was more noticeable in the mid-2010s. The price per episode has always been a small fee. More indirect examples of paywalls are DVDs and streaming services. When they are purchased new, they profit the creators of shows, especially because full episodes of streaming-exclusive shows don’t get released to their official channels. Clips are there, but only to generate hype for that streaming service so the creator gets some of the profit. However, individually purchasing episodes online or paying for a streaming subscription will cost more in the long run than a one-time DVD purchase or watching for free.
Streaming services can give a random network error if their servers are down, which feels wasteful if a service is $9.99 a month. While DVDs are frequently far more reliable and cost-effective because they can be watched offline and most can be bought at reasonable prices on eBay, some shows (such as Sagwa the Chinese Siamese Cat) are so old that their own DVDs purchased from eBay also cannot financially benefit the creator, because they were already bought once during the original release—which profited the creator once—and then resold by someone else who keeps the revenue. YouTube is the very reason forgotten treasure troves of traditional values, like Sagwa, are available to the general public.
Neither side wants to break the law or prevent people from seeing their media. The producer does not want their work shared without credit yet may want an online presence anyhow. Meanwhile, the uploaders do not actually want to steal the work but do want to share it as they really like the shows.
Since uploaders insist that the video is for fair use purposes only and they do not want to profit off of the work, here are some attempts at a compromise by show producers.
Some official channels have intentionally uploaded clips that are memes on unofficial channels to embrace memes and be involved with the fanbase. “Yakko’s World” and “Wakko’s America” were educational songs from the original Animaniacs that became memes from 2017-2019. The songs got remixed for any wacky reason. For example, there is a version of "Yakko’s World" where the video quality degrades every time he mentions a nation that does not have McDonald’s. The "Wakko's America" and "Yakko's World" edits are quite clearly transformative works and serve a new purpose as parody and criticism reaction images, with the new historical and educational value of Yakko listing all the nations that lack McDonald's or Wakko reciting every U.S. state with a city called "Buffalo" (i.e. Buffalo, New York). These memes are actually part of the reason an Animaniacs reboot exists, as it was based on the original show’s comeback online.
Some producers have put their own content on an official channel, perhaps to solve the copyright kerfuffle themselves by being the ones who upload the original work. The studios have themed channels for various shows. All of the 1990s DIC Entertainment Sonic the Hedgehog cartoons are on WildBrain’s channel in higher quality than the VHS-captured uploads on YouTube of yore. These channels do and should co-exist with unofficial uploads of Sonic shows.
Most uploads of copyrighted content are posted with a fair use purpose (education, history, research, or criticism). Entire TV shows, specials, and episodes are available solely because someone recorded all the episodes from TV and uploaded them, and memes generated from certain shows may trigger a reboot of said show. YouTube should stop blocking copyrighted content if it is uploaded for a fair use purpose because it saves less popular shows from being forgotten about and allows media reviews.
Learn the flip-side of cultural issues.
The culture doesn’t take a day off—and neither do we.
PJ Media VIP gives you exclusive access to original reporting, sharp commentary, and voices that won’t bend the knee. For a limited time, get 60% off your VIP membership with the promo code FIGHT.
Join PJ Media VIP and stand with independent conservative media.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member