[greiskul]

Commentary and criticism are by law protected as fair use. Why would revenue share be done "ideally"? News reporting is also covered under fair use, do you expect news organizations to pay for reporting on movies?

Ideally fair use would be defended, it is the law of the land, and when a takedown notice was emitted maliciously, with known bad faith, the actor that did that would have to pay for the amount of time that the legal content was down.

[reachableceo]

I believe the parent comment was saying that the YT poster should have gotten some revenue share. Since the work they put in would in theory be enhancing the original work. Obviously these sort of things are created and consumed primarily by “super fans” who probably buy director cuts etc etc .

At least that’s how I read the comment and I agree.

[socalgal2]

I don't think those laws will last. They were written in the 70s before youtube. Ideally the law would allow the critique but recongize it's the IP drawing in the users, and sharing some of the revenue.

[dahart]

Fair use was common law with judicial precedents for a couple hundred years before it became a statutory law in 1976.

Why would fair use law go away? Fair use for the purpose of critique is maybe the best & most favored defense of fair use by the Copyright Office, and ties together necessary copyright exceptions for supporting Free Speech and journalism, among other good reasons. Things also seem to be moving in the opposite direction with recent precedent deeming some AI uses transformative fair use. YouTube has done more that it’s fair share of playing fast and loose with copyrights for a profit, but YouTube, and more broadly Google, depends on fair use for massive portions of their business. I don’t see fair use going anywhere anytime soon.

[socalgal2]

I never said you shouldn't be able to use it, I only said you should have to share revenue if you use someone else's work. "fair use" and critique would still be a thing.

[garciansmith]

I don't know if fair use laws will last, but I hope they do, and definitely disagree that sharing revenue would somehow be ideal.

I've read criticism of media I've never even heard of (and learned some insightful things), so clearly the original IP isn't always the pull, and even if it was I don't understand how talking about something suddenly means I need to pay the person who owns the intellectual property of the thing I'm talking about. I think it would make criticism less likely and put us in an even worse situation than today, when large corporations often use the DMCA to take down clearly fair-use criticism. Just a further stifling of speech.

Also, fair use has been around since the eighteenth century, even if in the US the US 1976 Copyright Act made fair use statutory.