If the speech is original enough to be copyrighted, the speaker owns the rights to the content itself. The recording is a separate copyright, but you can't just distribute it without the author's permission for the same reason you can't record a movie in a theater and distribute it (aside from "fair use" exceptions).

▲

ceejayoz 3 days ago | parent [-]

Criticism and news reporting are very clear exceptions to this case, or politicians would sue every time their speech was quoted negatively.

▲

timr 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> Criticism and news reporting are very clear exceptions to this case, or politicians would sue every time their speech was quoted negatively.

That's why it would be good to have some specifics, as opposed to...the parade of generalities and thinly veiled character attacks in this article.

Yes, you're allowed, with specific rules, to make samples for criticism, parody, etc. You're not allowed to just make a video reel of long clips for "archiving". So it really matters a lot what was actually done here, and that is what we don't know.

▲

jrflowers 2 days ago | parent [-]

>You're not allowed to just make a video reel of long clips for "archiving"

Seems like you are though. What is the legal limit for a video that’s critical of a public figure based on that person’s statements about the thing that they are in charge of? If they talk real slow or use run-on sentences am I legally obligated to make sound bites to approximate my interpretation of their opinion? Like if a public figure says something but takes a while to say it, I’m not allowed to criticize it in full because it is long?

▲

timr 2 days ago | parent [-]

Google "fair use rule". It's not a simple answer, but no, you're not just allowed to cut together clips of someone else's work.

Regardless, what YouTube chooses to enforce and what is legally "fair use" are two different things.

▲

jrflowers 2 days ago | parent [-]

Fair use depends on context and purpose, though.

>“It’s really important to remember [Prasad’s] past words in order to gauge his current and future credibility, and that was the mission of my YouTube channel, to record what these doctors [Prasad and others] said,”

The condition to believe that the owner of the YouTube channel was in violation of fair use would be to believe that he was lying with the above statement, which there doesn’t seem to be any reason to believe. It’s literally criticism, of a public figure no less.

▲

timr 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yes, yes...and the "mission" of my uploading all 374 seasons of South Park to YouTube in 5 minute clips was to preserve history -- to record what Cartman said for posterity.

It's one of the oldest dodges of copyright law there is. You learn about this in high school journalism class (do they even teach that anymore?)

	▲	jrflowers 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		You sound pretty confident that this now-deleted YouTube channel was not using content in a way that would qualify as fair use. Can you clarify why from what you watched? I can only go off the description of the content from the article and what the person that made the videos said, so I would appreciate more detail from somebody that’s sure that this was the same thing as uploading every episode of South Park. I personally run into trouble with the “this is the same thing as uploading every episode of South Park” angle with all the “a public figure in charge of pubic health using possibly spurious claims of copyright infringement in scrubbing his public statements about his positions on public health” and the “dozens of views” stuff, but again I have not watched these videos and you have so Edit: also wait you learned about South Park YouTube rips in high school journalism class? And your takeaway was that archiving things is inherently to be distrusted? In journalism class? Like your journalism teacher told you that collecting information from primary sources and disseminating it in an organized way for the purpose of public good was the same thing as pirating a TV show for clout or profit? That is what they taught you in your school? I am not in high school but I would guess that no they do not teach that, like at all, ever. Like that is not a thing any journalism teacher should have ever taught. That is so antithetical to the concept of journalism that I can’t imagine what a “the opposite of journalism” class would be but it sounds dumb as hell. A class called “Journalism” that teaches you to only say what your subject wants you to say sounds like a machine to intentionally manufacture a stupid human being

▲

olalonde 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Indeed, fair use might apply, but it doesn't change who owns the copyright. And in practice, YouTube rarely cares about fair use as it's simpler and safer for them to ignore it.