Update from Lindsay about why this video is no longer available on YouTube: The video is still up on Nebula though, for those who have a subscription and want to watch it:...
Welp, this has never happened to me before but an artist has issued a takedown notice on my most recent video on YouTube in what is in my opinion a comically obvious case of fair use, and I have to admit of all the malicious copyright claimants, I didn't see the Grateful Dead being the one that took it the furthest.
The only way to fight them on this is to just let them take it down and issue the strike, and after a few days the video will come back and the strike will be removed, but the video will be gone for a while. It'll still be up on Nebula in the meantime.
never thought I'd have cause to say this but 🖕 Grateful Dead
Does anyone have a timestamp of when this occurs? I'd like to see it for myself, but I am not up to looking through an hour long video for what's presumably a brief use of some music I would not...
Does anyone have a timestamp of when this occurs? I'd like to see it for myself, but I am not up to looking through an hour long video for what's presumably a brief use of some music I would not recognize when I heard it.
Is it a "comically obvious" case of fair use? I'm absolutely not a lawyer so this is just my impression, but US copyright law has four factors (17 U.S.C. § 107)., Working under the presumption that she used a short snippet of their music:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
The video is commercial, even if it's educational, which should weigh against her. I presume she didn't actually comment, analyze, or criticize the music itself, so that should weigh against her as well.
The nature of the copyrighted work;
The copyrighted work is (presumably) a creative non-factual work (e.g. music, a song), which weighs against her.
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
She presumably used a very limited amount, which would weigh in her favor. Unless it's a short but extremely recognizable part of a song, in which case it may weigh against her, I think?
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Probably not displacing any market with the use, so this should weigh in her favor.
Per her bluesky it's a fanmade live show recording which WMG wouldn't even own despite issuing the copyright claim. That live show released in 2013 as an album and may have flagged as a false...
Per her bluesky it's a fanmade live show recording which WMG wouldn't even own despite issuing the copyright claim. That live show released in 2013 as an album and may have flagged as a false positive.
I also saw another comment that audio wasn't used from the Dead's video though. Which I cannot speak to.
She's quite confident it's bullshit, and she has a lot of experience (and has had legal representation in the past over bullshit claims) so I'd trust her judgement over mine. A musician/video creator who is tagged in by someone helps come to the same conclusion as above. She's making videos on Disney so I feel like she's figured out how to avoid the copyright strikes over the decade plus she's been doing it.
Thank you for the link. Having read through what's there and given it some more thought, I think there is some good information there for context of the case in general, but nothing really...
Thank you for the link. Having read through what's there and given it some more thought, I think there is some good information there for context of the case in general, but nothing really pertaining to fair use.
Lindsay's comment supports that the music was from that live concert, so everyone seems to agree on that. She says she used it from a fan recording and WMG wouldn't own the copyright to it, and that might be true. I don't know the transitional rules of the rights to publicly display perhaps unauthorized sound recordings made between 15th of February 1972 (based on The Sound Recording Act of 1971) and whatever followed it a few years later, particularly when the performance was also officially recorded and published much later in 2013. It's not a mess I want to spend time to untangle. In particular, because it is ultimately irrelevant to whether or not her use is fair use or not.
Once again she not only has legal representation but is also very experienced. While she could be wrong, presuming so makes little sense to me, as does spending all this time on it and referencing...
Once again she not only has legal representation but is also very experienced. While she could be wrong, presuming so makes little sense to me, as does spending all this time on it and referencing laws and such if you don't want to spend time on it.
I spend time on it because despite what people might think, I genuinely want to understand the fair use claim she made. I've previously followed two separate lawyer channels on youtube over...
I spend time on it because despite what people might think, I genuinely want to understand the fair use claim she made. I've previously followed two separate lawyer channels on youtube over several years, of which one specialized in copyright in part because fair use interests me. I've seen people who should know better claim something is clearly fair use when it wasn't.
I also haven't presumed she's wrong, so please do not put those words in my mouth. I have asked for references to when in the video have appeared, and I have given what I think is reasonable grounds to think that she may be wrong. You may appeal to authority to dismiss it if you wish, but that's really not contributing to what I was asking for.
I said I didn't understand why you were spending time on it when you said you didn't want to - you're not watching the video either. You used the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy incorrectly but I...
I said I didn't understand why you were spending time on it when you said you didn't want to - you're not watching the video either.
You used the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy incorrectly but I don't play "cite a fallacy (incorrectly) to win an argument" games; so, I will encourage you to go watch yourself if you really want to know rather than asking for homework from others and then dismissing it. I'm out.
Frankly, it feels as if you have a strong preconceived notion of me acting in bad faith. I thought I was clear that I was interested in the fair use argument. She claimed a fair use defense, which...
Frankly, it feels as if you have a strong preconceived notion of me acting in bad faith.
I thought I was clear that I was interested in the fair use argument. She claimed a fair use defense, which would imply that she recognizes that the work she used is copyrighted. If it wasn't, the defense would reasonably be "it's not copyrighted work" (which didn't come up until later in the discussion as an aside).
I didn't dismiss your reply. I read through it, looked into it, and came to the conclusion that other than identifying the source of the music, it was not particularly relevant to the fair use claim. I thanked you for the reply, and explained as much.
I said I wouldn't recognize the music when I heard it, and if it is the discussed live concert, it's about half an hour long. Should I listen to that for several hours until I might recognize sounds from it, then watch the video maybe several times over hoping I can catch it?
Honestly, part of me finds it insulting that you call this me asking for others to do my homework. The post is a link to the video. Presumably other people who are engaging with it may have been interested in watching it. If it was called out and discussed in the video, surely someone would be able to remember that. And if not, maybe someone knew the music and could give even a rough idea of when it was used. Is it truly unreasonable to ask for such help?
As for the appeal to authority, here they are, clear as day:
She's quite confident it's bullshit, and she has a lot of experience (and has had legal representation in the past over bullshit claims) so I'd trust her judgement over mine.
She's making videos on Disney so I feel like she's figured out how to avoid the copyright strikes over the decade plus she's been doing it.
Once again she not only has legal representation but is also very experienced.
They're not of the kind where one appeals to an irrelevant authority; her experience would absolutely be relevant. But it's nevertheless an appeal to authority in that the argument is not based on the facts of the matter, but the opinion of an authority figure. Essentially, "She knows what she's talking about, so give it a rest!".
That doesn't mean I'm not interested in her fair use analysis. Quite the opposite! If she is experienced, understanding why she thinks it's fair use is even more interesting, since my reaction to the claim is so skeptical.
That isn't how appealing to authority as a fallacy works. I said nothing about your good nor bad faith. I encouraged you to spend your time finding answers not replying to me since you didn't want...
That isn't how appealing to authority as a fallacy works.
I said nothing about your good nor bad faith.
I encouraged you to spend your time finding answers not replying to me since you didn't want to waste it. And yes I think you should watch the video to do so.
I am not interested in continuing this thread of conversation as I indicated before. This part isn't up for debate. I don't play fallacy games, and you're doubling down on them regardless of my desire to end the conversation.
You can think I'm being a jerk, asshole, bitch, liar, not in good faith, insulting, whatever. I will not be replying further to you in this thread as I've set that boundary.
You saying you don't want to continue the discussion does not mean I can't make my case. Yes, if you just stop replying, of course so will I. That's how discussions work. But if you want to pull...
You saying you don't want to continue the discussion does not mean I can't make my case. Yes, if you just stop replying, of course so will I. That's how discussions work. But if you want to pull out of a discussion, then just do it instead of adding additional comments and expecting me not to reply to them.
I didn't call you a jerk, asshole, bitch, liar, or not in good faith. I did state that I found one thing you said insulting, but that's an expression of my opinion and it does not mean I'm saying I think you are trying to insult me. I did say that I felt as if you had a strong preconceived notion about me acting in bad faith, and given that you keep putting insults in my mouth, I stand by that.
I would wager you don't need to be a lawyer to know that actually viewing the use in question is a prerequisite for performing a fair use analysis. You can throw around "presumably" all you want...
I would wager you don't need to be a lawyer to know that actually viewing the use in question is a prerequisite for performing a fair use analysis. You can throw around "presumably" all you want but the exact things you presume and gloss over are the core of what would determine the difference between an instance that is a comically obvious example of fair use and one that is not fair use at all.
She took a 3-4 year hiatus from YT and was only on Nebula until a little over a year ago. Now she posts some of her bigger stuff to both (Seemingly to help promote her book), which I think is...
She took a 3-4 year hiatus from YT and was only on Nebula until a little over a year ago.
Now she posts some of her bigger stuff to both (Seemingly to help promote her book), which I think is great. Her content is good and more people see it this way.
She’s published 4 videos on Youtube since 2022. She’s published 17 on Nebula (excluding trailers). So a fan gets much more of her content on Nebula.
She’s published 4 videos on Youtube since 2022. She’s published 17 on Nebula (excluding trailers). So a fan gets much more of her content on Nebula.
Update from Lindsay about why this video is no longer available on YouTube:
The video is still up on Nebula though, for those who have a subscription and want to watch it:
https://nebula.tv/videos/lindsayellis-did-disney-really-steal-aladdin
Does anyone have a timestamp of when this occurs? I'd like to see it for myself, but I am not up to looking through an hour long video for what's presumably a brief use of some music I would not recognize when I heard it.
Is it a "comically obvious" case of fair use? I'm absolutely not a lawyer so this is just my impression, but US copyright law has four factors (17 U.S.C. § 107)., Working under the presumption that she used a short snippet of their music:
The video is commercial, even if it's educational, which should weigh against her. I presume she didn't actually comment, analyze, or criticize the music itself, so that should weigh against her as well.
The copyrighted work is (presumably) a creative non-factual work (e.g. music, a song), which weighs against her.
She presumably used a very limited amount, which would weigh in her favor. Unless it's a short but extremely recognizable part of a song, in which case it may weigh against her, I think?
Probably not displacing any market with the use, so this should weigh in her favor.
Per her bluesky it's a fanmade live show recording which WMG wouldn't even own despite issuing the copyright claim. That live show released in 2013 as an album and may have flagged as a false positive.
I also saw another comment that audio wasn't used from the Dead's video though. Which I cannot speak to.
She's quite confident it's bullshit, and she has a lot of experience (and has had legal representation in the past over bullshit claims) so I'd trust her judgement over mine. A musician/video creator who is tagged in by someone helps come to the same conclusion as above. She's making videos on Disney so I feel like she's figured out how to avoid the copyright strikes over the decade plus she's been doing it.
Thank you for the link. Having read through what's there and given it some more thought, I think there is some good information there for context of the case in general, but nothing really pertaining to fair use.
Lindsay's comment supports that the music was from that live concert, so everyone seems to agree on that. She says she used it from a fan recording and WMG wouldn't own the copyright to it, and that might be true. I don't know the transitional rules of the rights to publicly display perhaps unauthorized sound recordings made between 15th of February 1972 (based on The Sound Recording Act of 1971) and whatever followed it a few years later, particularly when the performance was also officially recorded and published much later in 2013. It's not a mess I want to spend time to untangle. In particular, because it is ultimately irrelevant to whether or not her use is fair use or not.
Once again she not only has legal representation but is also very experienced. While she could be wrong, presuming so makes little sense to me, as does spending all this time on it and referencing laws and such if you don't want to spend time on it.
I spend time on it because despite what people might think, I genuinely want to understand the fair use claim she made. I've previously followed two separate lawyer channels on youtube over several years, of which one specialized in copyright in part because fair use interests me. I've seen people who should know better claim something is clearly fair use when it wasn't.
I also haven't presumed she's wrong, so please do not put those words in my mouth. I have asked for references to when in the video have appeared, and I have given what I think is reasonable grounds to think that she may be wrong. You may appeal to authority to dismiss it if you wish, but that's really not contributing to what I was asking for.
I said I didn't understand why you were spending time on it when you said you didn't want to - you're not watching the video either.
You used the "Appeal to Authority" fallacy incorrectly but I don't play "cite a fallacy (incorrectly) to win an argument" games; so, I will encourage you to go watch yourself if you really want to know rather than asking for homework from others and then dismissing it. I'm out.
Frankly, it feels as if you have a strong preconceived notion of me acting in bad faith.
I thought I was clear that I was interested in the fair use argument. She claimed a fair use defense, which would imply that she recognizes that the work she used is copyrighted. If it wasn't, the defense would reasonably be "it's not copyrighted work" (which didn't come up until later in the discussion as an aside).
I didn't dismiss your reply. I read through it, looked into it, and came to the conclusion that other than identifying the source of the music, it was not particularly relevant to the fair use claim. I thanked you for the reply, and explained as much.
I said I wouldn't recognize the music when I heard it, and if it is the discussed live concert, it's about half an hour long. Should I listen to that for several hours until I might recognize sounds from it, then watch the video maybe several times over hoping I can catch it?
Honestly, part of me finds it insulting that you call this me asking for others to do my homework. The post is a link to the video. Presumably other people who are engaging with it may have been interested in watching it. If it was called out and discussed in the video, surely someone would be able to remember that. And if not, maybe someone knew the music and could give even a rough idea of when it was used. Is it truly unreasonable to ask for such help?
As for the appeal to authority, here they are, clear as day:
They're not of the kind where one appeals to an irrelevant authority; her experience would absolutely be relevant. But it's nevertheless an appeal to authority in that the argument is not based on the facts of the matter, but the opinion of an authority figure. Essentially, "She knows what she's talking about, so give it a rest!".
That doesn't mean I'm not interested in her fair use analysis. Quite the opposite! If she is experienced, understanding why she thinks it's fair use is even more interesting, since my reaction to the claim is so skeptical.
That isn't how appealing to authority as a fallacy works.
I said nothing about your good nor bad faith.
I encouraged you to spend your time finding answers not replying to me since you didn't want to waste it. And yes I think you should watch the video to do so.
I am not interested in continuing this thread of conversation as I indicated before. This part isn't up for debate. I don't play fallacy games, and you're doubling down on them regardless of my desire to end the conversation.
You can think I'm being a jerk, asshole, bitch, liar, not in good faith, insulting, whatever. I will not be replying further to you in this thread as I've set that boundary.
You saying you don't want to continue the discussion does not mean I can't make my case. Yes, if you just stop replying, of course so will I. That's how discussions work. But if you want to pull out of a discussion, then just do it instead of adding additional comments and expecting me not to reply to them.
I didn't call you a jerk, asshole, bitch, liar, or not in good faith. I did state that I found one thing you said insulting, but that's an expression of my opinion and it does not mean I'm saying I think you are trying to insult me. I did say that I felt as if you had a strong preconceived notion about me acting in bad faith, and given that you keep putting insults in my mouth, I stand by that.
I would wager you don't need to be a lawyer to know that actually viewing the use in question is a prerequisite for performing a fair use analysis. You can throw around "presumably" all you want but the exact things you presume and gloss over are the core of what would determine the difference between an instance that is a comically obvious example of fair use and one that is not fair use at all.
Of course, which is why I started by asking if anyone knew when in the video it was.
A bit off topic, but didn't someone on the Nebula thread mention that Lindsay Ellis only uploads on Nebula now?
She took a 3-4 year hiatus from YT and was only on Nebula until a little over a year ago.
Now she posts some of her bigger stuff to both (Seemingly to help promote her book), which I think is great. Her content is good and more people see it this way.
She’s published 4 videos on Youtube since 2022. She’s published 17 on Nebula (excluding trailers). So a fan gets much more of her content on Nebula.