Is Rekieta even still a lawyer? He has been copyright claiming clip channels for a while now. May not be the best way to go.
It was already answered but he trued his licenses etc up. He's currently copyrighting clipping channels now because he has gone from them clipping his content in a "best of" manner to bring people to his channel to now the clips are showing things he doesnt agreet with. This is all within his rights. Previously he did give consent to wholesale using his content non-transformatively. So the clipping channels literally just cut out clips. no commentary etc. As far as I know he's only striking those who are still doing this, and even told his formerly favorite clipper Elissa Clips that she had better make the content transformative going forward. He has not rescinded his offer of anyone wanting to counter from using his contact info.
I am not well versed in copyright or that area of YT in general but what is this going to change? Reactions fall under fair use and she would need to actually take people to court if they challenge her and we all know she won’t. She is just trying to scare smaller reactionary channels, she can’t follow through with brushing her fucking teeth or taking a shower and Salah is way too retarded to do it either-and of course, they are broke as fuck.
This changes literally nothing in terms of youtube. Copyright exists in the US and Japan standard (and most of the world but the US and Japan are super extra) the moment you create the work. There is no registration required for copyright. As I type this post it is actually copyrighted (however I believe I give up those rights to Null as part of the terms of service).
However you can register copyright which sets official ownership of the work and its subsequent copyright to you. This is often done in a scholarly or entertainment piece of work as it sets YOU or your corporation as the true owner and first to create the work. Think about this with song lyrics, and books. By registering the work first you can then sell the copyright to another artist/publisher and they cant just steal it and say "nuh uh i wrote this exact same song 3 years ago". You also have to pay to register each work, I believe its about $40 give or take per. This is the US cost, not sure if other countries even accept this type of bullshit.
All it does is create a paper trail of the copyright ownership. What is interesting is YouTubes content ID system sort of does this already internally, but doe sit based on when you upload content. Lets say someone streams on rumble and you restream it to youtube live before that person can. As far as youtube is concerned you now own that "content id" as you were the first to publish it to youtube. They will still take it down upon literally anyones requested claim that it is theirs, but it'll be harder cus they wont get the suggested content ID match etc.
Now lets take this into YouTube land where Chantal lives. Chantal is the first person that uploads this content. If someone else uses certain portion of the video or audio it will trigger a flag in Chanta'ls channel dashboard that "hey your content ID showed up on this other channel what do you want to do?" .. OR Chantal searches for her own stuff even if it was transformed enough to miss the content ID and she directly submits a request that its actually hers. If you wanted you could create a completely new account and copyright strike every one of her videos claiming they are yours.
What then happens is a multi-layered approach that has no legal bearing. Upon receiving a "claim" that a video being used is actually copyright of someone else YouTube's default posture is to believe that is true, and take down the video. They do this because big corporations like the movie and music industry pressure them into enforcing copyright. YouTube does this because they themselves do not want these huge corpo's to then sue them into oblivion. When YouTube does this they do 0 research into who the content owner is, they do not check that it is transformative, fair use, or anything. YouTube does 0 arbitration. They just assume the claim and to be safe they take it down.
The poster of the now claimed content will get notified their stuff was claimed by another party. They have 2 courses of action: To accept it, and basically admitting what they did was infringment and not do anything, or to tell YouTube "no no. I believe this is either my copyright and/or is a fair use/transformative piece of content". YouTube then makes you put in the legal contact information for this counter claim so that it can pass it along to the original claimant. YouTube then puts the content back, and its off to the final stage.
At this point YouTube has received a claim, and to be safe taken down the claimed content. Then upon receipt of the counter claim YouTube has put the content back up and passed along the legal contact information provided. YouTube is now completely out of the equation and they await for the original claimant to persue the matter in a court with ruling jurisdiction. It is then up to the original claimant to file a lawsuit in court and prove that it is a copyright violation. At THIS POINT the official registered copyright can be used to show proof of copyright of the original content, but it does not negate Fair Use/Transformative content in the US legal system.
As you can see this system is ripe for abuse with anyone being able to claim anything. its even further muddied by imbeciles like Chantal who perpetuate this misinformation that just because YouTube accepted the initial claim that they are "in the right". And the naivety of those whos' work is being claimed makes them also accept that it is a "legal decision", or they are too afraid to counter claim because people like Chantal use the system to dox their critics.
(nah I'm not even finishing that) and "have u goys heard of reverse cowgirl?")
