Quote Originally Posted by JeffDime View Post
Quote Originally Posted by lck2000 View Post
I noticed ACA now has "©️All uploads are my intellectual property. You do not have permission to re-use any part of them without my written consent." in the description of each video.

Not sure if it was always there or a move now so that if EZ uses any clips (or anyone) she can try to copyright strike him and get his videos taken down.

Can you just claim "copyright" though and say no one is allowed to use this? Last I knew YouTube allows people to use clips of other videos under fair use if they are commenting on it or reviewing it. I'm guessing one of the first things they did was report his video and just try to get YouTube to take it down, which apparently didn't work. Nice to see his video has comparatively the same amount of views as her response even with substantially less subs.
She has had that written in her description and so does EZ for a long time. When I’m checking out a YouTube channel one of the first things I do is check the normal “cut and paste” description template they use below their videos. This will tell you a bit about their angle. Do they have merch, patreon, what other ways are the soliciting money, etc.

With the few videos I have done I will put the whole doctrine of fair use in my description. I don’t think it makes any difference. But the scammer I was critical of in my videos first got me a copyright strike for using clips of his in my videos. For a big channel like Slot Lady I think she is mainly putting that warning in their as a deterrent. You can bet your ass the first thing she did was submit a copyright claim against EZ for using her clips.

She would do this because copyright claims are processed quickly. Pretty much any other reporting will take time. EZ, I’m sure figured she would do this and that is why he used very short clips of Sarah’s video. Fair use is somewhat subjective, but it would of been a real stretch for YouTube to give him a copyright strike.

I don’t know for sure Sarah tried this method, but I am over 90%. YouTube made the correct decision and she had to go to Plan B. Which was mostly a horror show.
She would have a very hard time suing EZ or anyone else for reusing clips where she and Victor do a Q&A about themselves, or where she is addressing drama from other channels.

Intellectual property suits need to show losses, and as you said, they have to prove that it wasn't fair use. Simply reposting SlotLady videos on another channel, in order to reap monetary benefits, clearly would be IP theft. However, using clips of videos where they are making claims about themselves -- or addressing cross-channel drama -- for purposes of analysis or response, is definitely fair use. These basically invite return commentary, and the commentary itself is considered a new original work, even if some of it contains previous video.

Nobody reasonable person would watch EZ's video and think "content theft".