YouTube reaction videos could face lawsuits over ripped footage

midian182

Posts: 11,746   +178
Staff member
Why it matters: Love them or hate them, there's little escaping YouTube reaction videos. Clips of people reacting to other content are incredibly popular, but a federal court ruling could have massive legal ramifications for those making a living from this trend.

The lawsuit in question involves Christopher Cordova, who runs the Denver Metro Audits channel, and Jonathan Huneault, creator of the Frauditor Troll channel.

Cordova alleges that Huneault used his copyrighted footage without permission, grabbing the clips via ripping tools that bypass YouTube's technical protections.

Cordova says this is a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and goes against YouTube's terms and conditions, even though people have been ripping clips this way for years.

TorrentFreak wrote that Huneault's defense argued that Cordova couldn't prove ripping tools had been used, and that their client, along with many others, has used screen recording software in the past to copy content.

But US Magistrate Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi denied the request by Huneault's lawyers to dismiss the DMCA circumvention claims.

"Mr. Cordova has adequately pled that YouTube applies technological measures, including 'rolling-cipher technology' designed to prevent unauthorized downloading, to videos published on its platform that effectively control access to his videos for purposes of § 1201(a)." Judge DeMarchi said.

"Whether the videos may be viewed by the public is immaterial; the [complaint] refers to technological measures intended to prevent unauthorized downloading."

Huneault could still win the case, but allowing the DMCA claim may have far-reaching implications for many creators.

Most reaction creators say their use of others' clips falls under fair use as they're adding commentary to extracts, rather than uploading someone else's entire video and profiting from it. Therefore, the way they acquired said footage doesn't matter.

However, Judge DeMarchi's decision suggests that reaction videos could face legal action if the footage was obtained using ripping tools that circumvent YouTube's protections.

Huneault's lawyers say that argument is a tactical maneuver that may eventually fall apart if Huneault didn't use a ripping tool.

"If fair use rights apply, and if there is no cognizable injury, then what would be their grounds to have proper standing?" said defense lawyer Steven C. Vondran.

It's impossible to provide an exact number of reaction YouTubers, as they reach into the thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands. Some of the most popular channels, such as React, have over 20 million subscribers. It'll be interesting to see what impact this ongoing case has on the industry.

Permalink to story:

 
The irony of Fraudditors crying about DMCA and copyright is insane. Right up there with SovCits.

Its also a ridiculous precedent. Anyone could copyright themselves and then abuse the DMCA system to shut down criticism. Trolls work falls under transformative commentary and similar content has been fought over before.

In reality this is a "first amendment auditor" trying to shut down people laughing at him for his ridiculous behavior and constant arrests.
 
This decision needs to be reviewed by higher courts. If the balances and tradeoffs inherent to copyright law since the beginning can be undone simply by applying a layer of DRM, those balances and tradeoffs are rendered null and void.
 
One thing I hate about watching videos of something happening, is when they have a small tiny video at the bottom corner of someone watching the video to see their reaction. Which there was a filter to TURN THAT **** OFF!
 
Most "Youtube reaction channels" are actually capturing their screen with OBS or similiar software as the video they're reacting to plays on their browser directly from Youtube so even if this was "enforced" I think it wouldn't affect most of these type of channels.
 
It would seem people, including federal judges, don't understand what Fair Use is. Tree swigers and poo flingers..
 
It would seem people, including federal judges, don't understand what Fair Use is. Tree swigers and poo flingers..
Not quite right in this case. The judge acknowledged the fair use part. But she ruled the alleged use of a DRM removal tool is an entirely separate DMCA violation to which there is no fair use exception. So the violation here is not the content of the final video, but only the mechanism by which it was allegedly created. (which is further BS - the defendant denies use of such a tool, there is no evidence currently of it, and as another poster mentioned common sense favors a screen-grab approach, but the ruling now allows discovery meaning fair use users could be put through an expensive legal process anyway.)

I think/hope she's mistaken on this decision and higher courts will so rule, but it's not that the fair use issue didn't come up.
 
Not quite right in this case. The judge acknowledged the fair use part. But she ruled the alleged use of a DRM removal tool is an entirely separate DMCA violation to which there is no fair use exception. So the violation here is not the content of the final video, but only the mechanism by which it was allegedly created. (which is further BS - the defendant denies use of such a tool, there is no evidence currently of it, and as another poster mentioned common sense favors a screen-grab approach, but the ruling now allows discovery meaning fair use users could be put through an expensive legal process anyway.)

I think/hope she's mistaken on this decision and higher courts will so rule, but it's not that the fair use issue didn't come up.
The problem with that logic is that circumvention of copy protection is lawful when such is used for a Fair-Use situation, such as the act of review and critical response. If news agencies and publication outlets are allowed, so to are people creating "reaction" works. Fair-Use applies everywhere at all times and in all instances, even where the DMCA has effect.

The act of DRM circumvention is specifically not a crime or an infringement where a Fair-Use activity is the purpose. So in this case, that federal judge is not doing their job in a competent fashion as they are not recognizing the proper purpose of why Fair-Use exclusions exist.
 
One thing I hate about watching videos of something happening, is when they have a small tiny video at the bottom corner of someone watching the video to see their reaction. Which there was a filter to TURN THAT **** OFF!
You can do that.
Just find the source.
 
Youtube needs to die, it's just horrid now with all the ads and Google's policies. I wish more content creators uploaded to alternative websites as I hate using Failtube.
 
Youtube needs to die, it's just horrid now with all the ads and Google's policies. I wish more content creators uploaded to alternative websites as I hate using Failtube.
Why? So we have have a TikTok world? I can't think of a more pathetic idea.
 
Back