I won’t claim to be a copyright expert or anything, but this seems like it would fall under fair use. Especially if the videos were only snippets from other things.
Replies
It likely does, but using copyright strikes to get critical videos taken down isn't a new strategy. Unless you're a big name on social media, YouTube tends to err on the side of the presumed copyright holder so they don't get sued.
sep 1, 2025, 1:13 am • 0 0 • view
YouTube automatically takes down videos with copyright strikes in most cases.
sep 1, 2025, 1:23 am • 0 0 • view
Yes and that's a problem. There have been cases where the material falls under fair use or the person reporting it doesn't actually own the copyright and is just trying to get something removed or the monetization payments. It's a lot easier to get something removed for copyright than anything else.
sep 1, 2025, 1:56 am • 0 0 • view
That’s fair, but I think people are right to demand answers here. Whether they complied out of a willingness to participate in censorship or bc they’re so risk adverse that they have no protection against copyright claims being abused to silence dissent, they’re still responsible for that choice.
sep 1, 2025, 1:20 am • 0 0 • view
I agree, they are. And unfortunately the system they set up is easy to weaponize because it's largely automated. Another channel I follow was hacked a month ago and still doesn't have full control back and the employees they've talked to can't override the system.
sep 1, 2025, 1:49 am • 1 0 • view
This has been YouTube’s stance for nearly two decades.
sep 1, 2025, 1:23 am • 0 0 • view
Okay, so? It’s a bad system. I think we both agree on that. So why are you shooting down objections to it with “but that’s the way it is”?
sep 1, 2025, 1:51 am • 0 0 • view
i am simply pointing out that it is not viewpoint censorship but copyright censorship. youtube's policies are being misused rather than youtube being the actual source of censorhip. not sure why you're so damn butthurt about the difference.
sep 1, 2025, 3:11 am • 0 0 • view
Generally the copyright strike is automatic and the poster needs to remediate. The main issue is that this is not censoring original speech but enforcing the copyright regime that exists in the US in 2025. Not a fan of either but accuracy matters.
sep 1, 2025, 12:50 am • 0 0 • view
Except his videos were targeted for political reasons, not copyright. The main issue *is* censorship; using copyright claims as a veneer doesn’t change that. You’re not being more accurate; you’re just buying into their framing that this is just another copyright issue. It’s not—it’s a government
sep 1, 2025, 1:18 am • 0 0 • view
YouTube has specific legal obligations with regard to copyright that are at issue here. Their actions are related to that. To suggest otherwise is inaccurate.
sep 1, 2025, 1:20 am • 0 0 • view
official attempting to suppress critique and reporting on matters of public health. Whether YouTube complied out of willingness to assist with that goal or because they have zero protection against spurious, abusive copyright claims being used to silence dissent, they’re still responsible.
sep 1, 2025, 1:18 am • 0 0 • view
They have zero protections against spurious copyright claims because that’s what the law requires basically. They don’t want to deal with liability for copyright infringement. False claims of infringement are much more of a problem than this one incident.
sep 1, 2025, 1:22 am • 0 0 • view
And people are right to criticize them and demand answers.
sep 1, 2025, 1:18 am • 0 0 • view