ASK & DISCUSS INDEX

7 years, 4 months ago - Vasco de Sousa

That quote is youtube policy, not law. It's youtube's excuse for not quickly responding to complaints from youtubers whose work is being used to parody their amateur productions. But, even if Youtube is slow to take your video down, you could still get sued.

The newish law only covers productions where the copyright owners are untraceable. (such as amateur films that have been found in archives.) Even then, you may have to prove that you diligently searched for the owners (which can include writer, cinematographer, director and other parties, depending upon country of origin.) So, if it's my film, you haven't asked me, and you don't have permission. :)

There was a futurelearn course periodically run on film copyright, which covers fair use.
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/film-copyright/

If you're critiquing a film's ideology, such as using a small clip from an nazi propaganda film to make an anti-nazi film, you can often claim fair use. Leni Riefenstahl lost a copyright dispute.

If the film has limited distribution, such as being broadcast only for a university course, sometimes you can use a clip. But still, there are limits, as many films are made at least partially for educational purposes and need to make their money through academic settings.

But, when you're talking about using a purely commercial film to make another commercial, marketing, or exhibited film, you usually have to pay. In addition, the actors have publicity and/or moral rights in France, Germany, New York, California, and (if they don't give it up) in the UK and elsewhere which may limit how their images can be used without their consent. (Even dead actors, you can't use an image of Ronald Reagan to sell orange juice in California.)