Jim Sterling is right: Youtube has a Youtube problem.

It does not refer to Youtubers using unrelated footage willy nilly as backdrop for their videos on subjects that have nothing to do with the content in question. Using footage of Super Mario Odyssey over a discussion of Youtube's monetization policies is not fair use.

The only reason video creators like Jim Sterling have had to come up with things like his deadlock strategy is because of rights holders putting up claims against legitimate criticism of their work. The point of the whole deadlock gambit is that it's it prevents this from happening: it prevents illegitimate monetization of things that should be protected by fair use by ensuring that multiple (legitimate or otherwise) claims clog the system.

Yes, it's arguably unfair to people/organizations who place legit claims against the material being used to game the system. But that's the point. The entire gambit is predicated on the idea that "using footage of Super Mario Odyssey over a discussion of Youtube's monetization policies is not fair use," and nowhere has Jim Sterling claimed that any old arbitrary use of whatever footage he wants under whatever circumstances he deems fit is or should be protected by fair use. It's supposed to draw attention to the flaws inherent in YouTube's policies and systems. If those flaws weren't there, the proper critical use of copyrighted material couldn't be monetized in the first place (say, using footage of Super Mario Odyssey when discussing Super Mario Odyssey), Sterling wouldn't have to deliberately break the system, and everyone's legal rights and privileges would be upheld.

/r/GamerGhazi Thread Parent