This isn't even a fair use defense, and I'm utterly baffled why anyone (let alone most people) in this thread seems to think it is.
Copyright does not protect Samsung from having their products rendered (in other words, I'm not breaking the law by drawing a picture of a Samsung phone) or their name mentioned.
Copyright does not protect marks, that's Trademarks.
Copyright does not protect basic look and feel.
There's no fair use defense here because there is no legitimate claim of infringement. Just because someone at Samsung clicked the "this is infringing" box does not A) make it true, or B) require the video author to defend themselves.
This is basically like Samsung trying to DMCA a newspaper from mentioning their name or publishing a picture of their phone.
>This is basically like Samsung trying to DMCA a newspaper from mentioning their name or publishing a picture of their phone.
I have no doubt that companies would do that if they could. Fortunately such draconian censorship methods aren't as effective against print media, especially when said media is ephemeral in the first place.
If the goal of the DMCA is to protect creative works, then it's a huge failure no matter how you look at it. Not only is it being used as a weapon against people who are actually creating innovative and original works, it is useless for protecting those very same individuals. The creative work of individuals is stolen and shared millions of times each day on sites like Facebook, imgur, tumblr, and instagram, generating ad revenue for the parent site, and followers for the pages and individuals committing the thefts, and leaving the creators of the content with nothing.
You can submit a takedown request as an individual, but by the time it's honored the post was old news anyways.
Quick clarification: Parody is Fair Use protected, Satire is not. There's a distinct difference. For a real-world, tech/music battle that showed how true this distinction is, research GoldiBlox vs. Beastie Boys (settled out of court).
Copyright does not protect Samsung from having their products rendered (in other words, I'm not breaking the law by drawing a picture of a Samsung phone) or their name mentioned.
Copyright does not protect marks, that's Trademarks.
Copyright does not protect basic look and feel.
There's no fair use defense here because there is no legitimate claim of infringement. Just because someone at Samsung clicked the "this is infringing" box does not A) make it true, or B) require the video author to defend themselves.
This is basically like Samsung trying to DMCA a newspaper from mentioning their name or publishing a picture of their phone.