Pokémon Reorchestrated YouTube channel taken down: Third copyright strike resulted in...

[Yoshi1001]

I would speculate that reaction videos can be considered to be criticism or review, which certainly is Fair Use

Also, I suspect it generally helps drive traffic to the original video, which benefits the creator.

As far as reviewing claims, YouTube (even as a subsidiary of a large company like Google), doesn't have the resources to review every one, especially since I assume most aren't disputed. That being said, random audits (I'm assuming they aren't being done already) could go a long way to improving some aspects.

 

[SnorlaxMonster]

If this is not another case of automatic copyright takedowns being issued without consent then TPCi is just plain despicable. There's tons of Pokemon music on YouTube and they don't take those videos down. You can't pick and choose with copyright law. Besides, the videos in question have been up for years. Why take them down now?

That's true. Unfortunately, the consequence of that is that it can be used as evidence defending an accused breach of copyright in court, which isn't helpful in dealing with Youtube takedowns

Actually, you can pick and choose in copyright law. Selective enforcement is not a legal defense (at least in most jurisdictions). You're thinking of trademark law, where this is the case. (I'm not a lawyer.)

Yet YouTube allows reaction YouTubers to take entire videos from the more popular folks, such as PewDiePie, without permission and make money off of their hard work without any consequence. What the hell has been going on with YouTube lately?

Popular YouTubers (so certainly PewDiePie) get access to ContentID too, so they are able to issue claims (as well as takedowns like TPCi did here). Of course, with reaction videos, depending on how transformative the work is, it may or may not be fair use.

 

[Viridi]

Google/Youtube needs to look up the definition of "fair use" sometime.

 

[Sixthhokage1]

Here's the problem with Fair Use Doctrine, it only has any meaning when taken to court. It is a set of guidelines for a judge to make a decision from. According to 17 USC 107, the factors are:

(1)
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2)
the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3)
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4)
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I can very well see how the Pokémon Reorchestrated project would not stand up as fair use in a court of law, being a derivative of TPCi's copyrighted compositions that is commercially sold in album form. The defense to go for would be one instead based on the license contract through Joypad.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just a layman who is somewhat well-read on US copyright law