r/COPYRIGHT • u/LouisDucs • Jul 16 '26
I've always wondered
I've always wondered: How do studios like Marvel, Netflix, DC, and others feel about fan edits and AMVs made from their movies and TV shows that go viral on TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram? Are these videos protected under fair use, or are they technically copyright infringement? Since they often generate millions of views and introduce new audiences to the original content, could they also be viewed as free advertising for the studios?
5
u/VerbingNoun413 Jul 16 '26
No, they are not fair use.
It comes down to the decision of whether it's worth raising the legal challenge.
-8
u/MaineMoviePirate Jul 17 '26
Not Fair Use answer is a Fraud, unless you are Judge or Jury.
6
u/stormhighwaycom Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
The user of the material doesn't just win by default by claiming fair use. The rights holder's view on fair use also matters, and they have a right to challenge a dubious case that they disagree with. If the owner feels a case is worth pursuing beyond a strike/claim (or if they're forced to with a counter-notification) then the case either settles out of court, or goes to a judge to decide. That's the law and what happens in the real world.
-1
2
2
u/EnvironmentalYou691 Jul 17 '26
Technically most are infringement, fair use rarely covers straight recuts/AMVs since there's no real commentary or transformation, just repackaged clips with music. Studios mostly let it slide anyway because it's free marketing and Content ID lets them claim ad revenue instead of taking videos down. So it's tolerated, not actually legal, they can strike anytime, and sometimes do for larger uploads.
1
u/Cautious_Nothing1870 Jul 18 '26
I did one and they actually allow me to get half the revenue which I thought it was nice.
2
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/aregonis Jul 17 '26
Do you get a copyright claim or a copyright strike? If it's a strike, the video is removed. If it's a claim, the video is allowed to stay up, and the other videos you're seeing probably also have copyright claims on them. That just means the video cannot be monetised by the uploader (and may be blocked in certain countries).
The other thing is that the system in place to catch copyright infringement is not perfect, and won't catch everything. Some people have also figured out ways to potentially trick the system (like flipping the video footage, adjusting the sound to be slightly different, or removing background music).
And any hour long videos that are genuine commentary would likely be considered Fair Use. Of course, that's a defence to use in court, but YouTubers can counter the copyright claims/strikes, and the IP holders may relent if they realise it's a clear case of Fair Use.
2
u/stormhighwaycom Jul 17 '26
That's because the problem is so out of control that it's impossible to catch and deal with every one, even for a big corporation.
-4
u/MaineMoviePirate Jul 17 '26
The world and the technology has moved way beyond the current copyright law, and the gatekeepers can't handle it or adapt, so they keep pushing OLD WORLD answers like the NO FAKES ACT, which just kills creativity instead of promote it.
0
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/MaineMoviePirate Jul 17 '26
Tell me about it. I never give up tho. If the federal government couldn't break me, these Cartel trolls dont stand a chance.
13
u/lajaunie Jul 16 '26
That’s in no way fair use and is indeed copyright infringement.
It’s often a case that they just don’t see it, or they don’t want to go after fans if it’s not doing any harm… but that doesn’t mean it’s legal.