Cool Cat Learns Fair Use

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments

I am glad Adam put out this video, but it is too bad it had to be made in the first place.

👍︎︎ 136 👤︎︎ u/unicornlamp 📅︎︎ Nov 20 2015 🗫︎ replies

As I stated in comments of the video, I don't think Derek is all those names some people are calling him, he's just some guy who really doesn't know any better. Let's hope this video get's to him and makes him see the right path.

👍︎︎ 83 👤︎︎ u/johnymyko 📅︎︎ Nov 20 2015 🗫︎ replies

20 minutes

Don't hurt him Adam :(

👍︎︎ 168 👤︎︎ u/gangstarapmademe 📅︎︎ Nov 20 2015 🗫︎ replies

DeREKT

👍︎︎ 82 👤︎︎ u/FlyingMicrowaveOven 📅︎︎ Nov 20 2015 🗫︎ replies

Adum is a class act. Great video, per usual.

👍︎︎ 31 👤︎︎ u/urmotherismylover 📅︎︎ Nov 20 2015 🗫︎ replies

Dat Funhaus shotout.

👍︎︎ 43 👤︎︎ u/lesi20 📅︎︎ Nov 20 2015 🗫︎ replies

Is Derek Savage attempting copyright takedowns on YMS videos? I'm assuming not, considering how much they helped line his pockets.

Which is why I don't get his takedown of IHEs videos. They both made fun of Cool Cat, but yet helped him make money at the same time. Is there some invulnerability YMS has over IHE? I honestly don't understand his thought process here.

👍︎︎ 44 👤︎︎ u/thenerdyglassesgirl 📅︎︎ Nov 20 2015 🗫︎ replies

I legitimately found myself fist pumping the air at several points throughout this video. Thank you so much for this Adam. Savage's video is one of the dumbest fucking tirades I've ever seen anyone go on in my entire life, and I hope he carries that shame and embarrassment with him as he goes about his business as a reminder to not ever suppress the rights of others again.

Cunt cat indeed.

👍︎︎ 22 👤︎︎ u/[deleted] 📅︎︎ Nov 20 2015 🗫︎ replies

Hopefully Daddy Derrick will learn about what he did wrong

👍︎︎ 12 👤︎︎ u/[deleted] 📅︎︎ Nov 20 2015 🗫︎ replies
Captions
[YMS] *sigh* Now, I'm the type of person that tries pretty hard to stay out of YouTube drama. But, alas, it seems as though I've been thrust into it by association. Now, recently Derek Savage has issued several takedown notices against reviews of his film "Coolcat Saves The Kids." After facing some heat for it he has now posted a video defending those takedowns, saying that those videos weren't actually Fair Use at all. It is because of this video that I am now making a video instead of having this conversation over email: because, Derek, you're absolutely right that there's a lot of misinformation about copyright and Fair Use. So in a calm and civilized manner, without attacking your character, I'm making this video to help you and everybody else understand exactly what Fair Use is. Now in the video you posted, you made the following statement: [Derek] There is so many lies and just "misinformation" on the internet about copyright infringement and Fair Use. And I want to clarify the difference between copyright infringement and Fair Use. [YMS] But unfortunately the video showed no such distinction. Instead, you just showed examples where defendants have claimed Fair Use, without actually winning the case. You made no effort to explain why those cases weren't Fair Use, and you made no effort to explain what would have made them Fair Use. Your position is that using portions of copyrighted materials in your own work, and then monetizing that same work is copyright infringement. The examples that you provided as previous case law were in fact copyright infringement. Despite claiming Fair Use, the defendants did not meet the qualifications required to be considered Fair Use. However, the reviews that you issued takedown notices against, and even this video, do fall under Fair Use and I will explain it and thorough detail with factual evidence. Now when you say that you shouldn't believe everything you hear on the internet, I completely agree with you. Which is why my understanding of Fair Use is not based off of youtube comments or random articles, they are based off of actual legal documents being interpreted by legal professionals. Fair Use is not just a magical word that people use to try and get out of copyright infringement, Fair Use is a very real exemption to copyright infringement laws. Key word here being "exemption." Fair Use dictates that, as long as certain qualifying factors are met, you do not need permission from the copyright holder to be able to use, publish and, yes, monetize portions of their works in your own. After watching through your entire video twice, you did not offer any explanation as to what these copyright infringers could have done to fall under Fair Use. As someone whose entire business relies on Fair Use law, I am happy to explain them for you. [Derek] Rogers took this picture, Koons ripped him off and made some statues right here, you know, a- and he sold them. Once again, monetizing. Trying to make commercial profit off somebody else's work is a major no-no. You can not monetize YouTube videos, or any of that crap. Remember that, that is law. It will get you in a lot of trouble, and you're a scumbag to do it, cause you're ripping somebody off. [YMS] All right, now I'm going to ignore the fact that you just inadvertently called me a scumbag. What needs to be addressed is that although monetization and commercial purposes for the work is considered, it is not a determining factor. I do not believe for a second that you would be okay with someone illegally downloading the Cool Cat movie, as long as they weren't selling it afterwards. Monetization or selling does not determine guilt, and it does not determine innocence. And if you don't believe me, just ask Julie Arens: lawyer and associate director for the Fair Use project, in a video posted by Stanford University's Center for Internet and Society. [Julie] I'm here to talk about some common myths regarding Fair Use, and one of, mh, the common beliefs about Fair Use is that, if you are making money or attempting to make money by, uh, using something, that that is not a Fair Use. Or, if you're not making f- money off of it, then it automatically is a Fair Use. This isn't a true distinction. While whether something is commercial, or non-commercial, is one of the factors that goes into deciding whether a use is fair or not, it is not a determinative factor. So, you can be doing something to make money, whether it's, uhm, off of ad revenue or otherwise, that can be a fair use, many commercial enterprises rely on Fair Use every day. There are other, uh, uses that are non-commercial, that are not Fair Use, and, uhm, so the distinction between making money or not making money does not, uh, decide the question of whether a use is fair, or not. [YMS] And if you still want to go by case law, let's take for example when South Park parodied a popular song for their show. [Derek] When it comes to law, there's one thing you go by, and it's called case law: previous cases. [YMS] The original owner filed a lawsuit against them, but South Park won, because of Fair Use law. One of the most essential Fair Use provisions is parody law. So because South Park's use was both transformative, and provided commentary on the original by poking fun at it, it was considered a clear example of Fair Use. They used portions of the original material to create something transformative, that provided commentary on the original. And because of that, they are not legally required to ask permission of the copyright holder, and they are not legally required to compensate the copyright holder. The example used in your video is a clear example of copyright infringement, as it makes no attempt to comment, or poke fun at the original. [Anthony] Parodies received relatively strong protection under Fair Use. One of the reasons is because a parody is fundamentally a criticism of the original, and ... cases right up to the Supreme Court have provided relatively strong and broad protection for parodies. Parody is something that holds the original up to ridicule. You have to be saying something about the original; presumably something negative, or at least critical about the original. By definition, if you are parodying a visual work, you are probably going to use a portion of that visual work, so to answer your question: yes if you're parodying, uh, an audiovisual work, then sure, uh, all things being equal, Fair Use of probably give you a fair amount of leeway to use the material from that work. [Impersonation of Cool Cat] Woah, cool! "Cool Cat Saves The Kids" is my favorite movie! Haha, Woo! Now rememder, kids, bullying is wrong! Ooh! [Anthony] Remember, a parody doesn't have to be funny, it doesn't have to be successful, uhm, it may not even make any sense, but it has to target the original with some form of critique or ridicule. So, to get back to your question: if the subject of your parody is a cartoon, or a video game, then presumably you're going to have to use, uhm, a fair amount of that cartoon or that video game to make your parody. So yes, in general, Fair Use will probably give you a relatively broad latitude to borrow from the original there. [YMS] If the designer of the statue had given them punk rock mohawks, and maybe had them holding a pile of big macs instead of puppies,then it would be considered Fair Use. The most important factor when determining Fair Use is whether or not it's transformative, and serves a different purpose from the original. A review for your film, using clips from your film, in order to help illustrate the points being made about your film serves an entirely different purpose than the film itself, whereas something like this statue is infringing upon potential markets, typically reserved for the copyright holder. The copyright holder of the original image has every right to use that image as a design for a statue, so if someone else makes that statue in a completely non-parodying and non-transformative way, then they are infringing upon their market. [Julie] Using copyrighted material in a review is a classic case of Fair Use, and so using a clip or, uhm, portions of the copyrighted material in order to present your review of the- of a film, that is something that i- is very likely to be found a Fair Use. You're using it for a very different purpose than the original, you're commenting on it, and you might be criticizing it. So in answer to your- the second part of the question: it doesn't even matter if you're promoting the film, you could be criticizing the film and saying that it's terrible and using clips to support that argument, and that would still be a fair use. Also, uhm, and if- if you were doing the review for a commercial purpose and were making money, that also wouldn't be a determining factor. So, reviews and using the copyrighted material to support that review, that's a classic, uh, use that is often considered a fair use. [Derek] Bottom line, even when it comes to water bottles: if you look at movies; I took the label this. Cause I don't want any problems. you can- I mean you can get busted for doing that right there: having- showing bottles, if you're trying to make a profit off of it. This video here's not gonna be monetized i- in a bit. So, you know, but you don't- I even did that. You got to be that careful in today's world, people. [YMS] Well, unfortunately, Julie Ahrens has already explained that monetization is not a determining factor. So by your logic, does JVC have the right to take down your video just because you're showing their copyrighted logo? Yes, it is a standard precaution to remove all labels and brand names in films, but it is not a determining factor. Obviously, if there is some sort of parody or commentary being made about the brand being featured, then it is a clear case of Fair Use. [Randy] Our town has only had a Whole Foods for three weeks, and we already have our first gay kids. So cool. [YMS] Otherwise, that standard precaution is usually taken out of fear that brand names will sue for defamation. Louis Vuitton sued The Hangover 2 for this joke: [Alan] Careful, that is a Louis Vui- that is a Louis Vuitton! [YMS] Their claim was that the film would trick audience members into believing that the chinese knockoff was an actual one of their products. But, considering the context, that the characters a moron anyway, the courts dismissed the allegations as being not plausible. The Hangover 2 was a multi-million dollar production, so people and companies are naturally going to try and pursue lawsuits for any variety of reasons. Generally speaking, incidental brand-name appearances in YouTube videos is not really something that anybody has to worry about. Otherwise I'd worry about getting a lawsuit from JVC, as they probably don't want their brand name being associated with misinformation on copyright. What's more important than JVC, however, is the bloggerwebsite you featured in your video, "99designs." You see that thing at the bottom of the page that says "© 99designs?" You know that the page you're showing us in your YouTube video is protected by copyright law, right? So is your position, that 99designs owns your video now? Or maybe you think you're in the clear because you're not monetizing the video or using it for commercial purposes. [Derek] It is *the* anti bullying and kids gun safety movie. [YMS] Or using it for commercial purposes. [Derek] Get your own copy of the movie, it's only $9.99, my god, you could afford that. Get your own copy of the movie an- and see how entertaining and enjoyable this film is. Bottom line, my word to you, my guarantee to you: you never seen nothing like the "Cool Cat Saves The Kids" film, I guarantee that. [YMS] Oh, what was that, Derek? If you're using portions of copyrighted material in your video, that you intend to make money on, then it's copyright infringement? Lucky for you, that's not how it works. Just like those reviews you took down are Fair Use, your video is also Fair Use. You are ironically exercising Fair Use, in order to spread misinformation about Fair Use. How do you think the website is able to show you the pictures they're talking about, Derek? They're advertising their design services on the same page, and making money off of it, so according to you, that's illegal, right? According to you, you are promoting a website, that is actively participating in copyright infringement, while you simultaneously denounce copyright infringement. How do you think you're able to show us the pictures, that the website is talking about? Did you get permission from 99designs, Art Rogers, Mannie Garcia and Patrick Cariou to make this video? This video that you are using for commercial purposes? No, because it's Fair Use. I apologize for not staying as calm as I originally intended on being, but in terms of the reviewers that you've affected, you are literally infringing upon their copyright, right now. And abusing YouTube's copyright system to hold their channels hostage like this is not something that I can defend. They have the legal right to be able to publish and monetize their Fair Use videos, and you are literally infringing upon that right. You can't just keep showing us examples of defendants claiming Fair Use, and then act as though that somehow delegitimizes Fair Use as a whole. [Derek] This guy, the thief, responded with the defense of Fair Use. Look right here. Claiming his work didn't reduce the value of the original photograph. [YMS] In this example, you're showing us the case never even went to court, so it very well could have been determined as Fair Use. [Derek] They smacked that guy, and when they do a private settlement like that, it's so they don't have to disclose how much money was traded hands, there. Or how much he got beat, you know, got smacked for stealing the artwork right there. You cannot steal copyrighted artwork, or movie, or anything like that. It's illegal, and you're stealing right there. A judge ruled in favor of Cariou! Right here, this gentleman ... claiming the charges made against (?) weren't significant enough to constitute a change in meaning, fair- or Fair Use. [YMS] See, this is the part of your video that worries me a little, because when reading that sentence, you should have had a bit of an epiphany regarding Fair Use. The changes made to Carious photographs weren't significant enough to constitute a change in meaning - Fair Use; The changes weren't significant enough to be considered a new meaning, and if they were, it would be Fair Use. It is true that he altered photograph doesn't really change the meaning all too much, which is why it's copyright infringement, and not Fair Use. However, if the changes in the original are significant enough to constitute a change in meaning, then it can be considered Fair Use. This is supported by the very article that you're claiming states the opposite. If somebody uploaded scenes from "Cool Cat Saves The Kids," and didn't provide any sort of parody, or commentary, or criticism, and the only difference was, that they photoshopped sunglasses onto Cool Cat's face, then you're right that it would not be considered Fair Use. That would be copyright infringement, because, although photoshopping sunglasses onto him would be changing the work, the changes would not be significant enough to constitute a change in meaning - Fair Use. On this website you're showing us, it's clear that they're running advertisements. Hey! It's Funhouse! Those guys are pretty cool. Once again, by your own logic, you are promoting a website that is actively participating in copyright infringement. Once again, according to you, you are copyright infringing both this website, and the guy that took this photograph. As for this last example, it's not exactly as simple as you're saying it is. [Derek] All they did- I mean how long is a song? About three minutes? All they did was a simple beat in that song. A simple beat! And they matched it up to, uh, to a Marvin Gaye song, and they got smacked. They got fined. They got penalized. Seven point three million dollars. [YMS] If the only infringing factor was the drumbeat, then it's highly unlikely that this case would have been considered copyright infringement. Now you can easily win a court case, if your song's melody and/or lyrics are copied, but as for drum beats and individual chord progressions, it is virtually unheard of. The reason, why Robin Thicke and Pharrell lost the court case is because they were essentially using the original song as a blueprint to create their own. They ripped off the drumbeat, they ripped off the base notes, the chord progression was too similar, and they were both using falsetto. And there really isn't all that much more to the entire song. [Brandon] At one point, Pharrell testified, that he had crafter "Blurred Lines" on his own merits, without thinking about Gaye's song. This contradicted several comments by Robin Thicke made in interviews, including the time that he stated that he and Pharrell aimed to create a song reminiscent of "Gotta Give It Up." He later reneged on his comments while on the stand, claiming that he had lied, and was under the influence of alcohol and drugs during the press run, which I imagine did nothing for his credibility in the eyes of the jury or judge. [YMS] Just like your other examples, this does not prove your case against the reviews that you took down. All it does, is show that you're under the impression that copyright holders have an unlimited control over their copyright. Thankfully for all of us, that is not the case, and that is exactly what Fair Use is designed to prevent. Otherwise you and your movie might be in legal trouble with iPhone, ADT Security, Gmail, Jeep, Dakota Tires, Apple, again, Van Halen, Jurassic Park, Ghostbusters, Hard Rock Cafe, Smurfs, and the list goes on. Derek, if somebody was seriously infringing on your copyright, then you would have my full support in taking those videos down. But the reviews that you took down were not infringing upon your copyright in any way. [Derek] I sent an (?) email, a nice email, uhm, just, b- about three- three or four days ago, saying: "You know, let's end this crap, you know, just give me a f- a little apology, take down those videos, I'm a happy camper. I would not do any further legal actions against you. [YMS] You're demanding that I Hate Everything removes all of his Cool Cat videos, and issues a public apology to you, in exchange for not pursuing legal action against him? Derek, you are the one who is legally obligated to remove your claim from his and the other reviewers' videos. I Hate Everything was wrong for publicly escalating this so quickly, but that does not change the fact that you are illegally holding their channels hostage right now. Which looks even worse, now that you've watched this video filled with evidence that you are not in the legal right, here. I'm trying to be as nice as I possibly can be, here, but you are literally going against everything I have stood for on this channel over the past five years. I sincerely believe that you weren't trying to fool anyone and that you're just genuinely mistaken about Fair Use. There's a lot of people willing to forgive you, so long as you stopped filing illegitimate claims against people. [Derek] Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Always remember that. You can't go into court saying: "Well, judge, I didn't know it, I thought it was this, I thought it was that." No, it's not. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. [YMS] There is a lot of misinformation about copyright law. Even though my videos are Fair Use, I've dealt with more copyright claims than I can count. Which is why every single one of my videos - including this one - is mirrored on my website yourmoviesucks.org. Having my own website that doesn't rely on youtube is a great safety net against copyright claims. Whenever a video of mine is unjustly taken down from YouTube, people can just watch on my website instead. Now, since my videos are Fair Use, I've won every single copyright dispute that's been thrown my way. But you never know when one's going to strike next, so it's good to keep everything backed up. Anyway, before you respond to this, please try and remember that I'm not trying to be mean to you, here. I'm only trying to correct the facts. [Derek] That is not being a bully right there to any degree. Stating a fact is a fact. [YMS] So, now that you know the facts, please take initiative, and restore their videos. You are not legally allowed to hold the videos hostage behind a set of demands. Even if you don't think that this is the right thing to do, please do it, because it's the only legal thing to do, Derek. You've already stated in your video, that their reviews have not negatively impacted your sales whatsoever: [Derek] Over the past week - good lord almighty - I have sold more Cool Cat movies than I usually do in a month and a half, period; More Cool Cat tshirts - I had to place another order because I'm just- I- I'm selling out of everything. [YMS] You've even got a five star review on Ebay from someone who bought your product because of those reviews. We're all counting on you to make this decision, Derek. And if somehow you watch this entire video and you still believe that copyright law works in the exact way that you stated it does, then please refrain from issuing any further takedown notices, because remember: You don't own the video I'm reviewing right now, 99designs does. Or possibly all of the artists featured in the article. If you sincerely believe, that copyright law works the way you've stated it does, then you don't actually own "Cool Cat Saves The Kids," and you shouldn't be making claims on its behalf. Anyway, I know the rest of you are looking forward to that "Unfriended" review, so don't worry, and it'll be out early December. And in case you're wondering, a mirror for this video is linked in the video description. Everyone have a beautiful day, and remember: Cool Cat loves you! Peace! [Cool Cat] With cyber bullying, you kind of... can't really stop it, if you don't know who it's coming from. But, my best advice: Just ignore 'em! [Child Actor 1] Yeah! They're the losers for trying to cyber-bully us. So don't lower your standards by playing their stupid game. Anotherwords, don't let them punk you into playing their game. [Cool Cat] And that's right! And that's fantastic advice! [Child Actor 2] Yeah! [Cool Cat] Yeah!
Info
Channel: YourMovieSucksDOTorg
Views: 3,181,022
Rating: undefined out of 5
Keywords: cool cat, cool cat saves the kids, derek savage, fair use, copyright, ihe, i hate everything
Id: H5ZmVheuxpo
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 20min 43sec (1243 seconds)
Published: Thu Nov 19 2015
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.