Explain why.
Explain as if there were no subscribers already watching the original content FIRST, and then sharing this video with friends or people they know in the first place.
"Reactions" on Youtube and being transformative enough to merit monetization
- Thread starter Dio
- Start date
- Status
Explain why.
Explain as if there were no subscribers already watching the original content FIRST, and then sharing this video with friends or people they know in the first place.
ZackieChan
Member
Because...FREE ADVERTISING! EVERYTHING IS A REMIX! CORPORATIONS, MAN!
"once they've seen it once with the reaction, WHY would they go back and watch it again?" misses the point. It assumes the people watching the reaction are all viewers who would have watched the source video if the reaction didn't exist. Unless you assume that it doesn't matter if they go back and watch the source video, as it would have no impact on the views of the source video. The point being if you removed reactors from that scenario the views wouldn't transfer, they'd disappear.
"if they chose to watch the reaction video, WHY do you think they would have watched the source video if the reaction didn't exist?"
ZackieChan
Member
One could just as easily assume the opposite, which is what courts do anyway.
I'm not quite sure what you're asking.
You're also making a huge assumption by saying the views increase for the original content when people have seen the video in the reaction video itself. Again, the "reactors" we're talking about are the ones that provide NO opinion or discussion. It's just them blankly staring at their computer, saying AND doing nothing to distract anyone watching these "reaction" videos.
An example video?
And I'm sure there are shit reactions. There are also shit video game Let's Plays. I'm talking about reaction videos in general, and it wouldn't make sense to dismiss them entirely because of specific, bad examples.
Okay, I'm talking about people who don't do anything. This video is an example of what I'm talking about, he does an intro and does nothing during the video he reacts to in it's entirety. He just rambles after that.
There was a miscommunication there.
Randomly, I skipped to 47 second seconds in. He laughs, makes a comment, then a joke. It might not be funny, but to say he "does nothing"?
It's basically nothing man. It's nothing engaging. Not even in the slightest. I'm not even talking about effort, it's just static. Just some guy putting his face next to a video he ripped and "reacting" to it.
That's an opinion. It's something you don't find entertaining, but that doesn't mean it has no entertainment value to anyone else.
ZackieChan
Member
Yes, but I don't think something like that is transformative for the purposes of copyright fair use. And most likely fails the other factors, too.
As I argued before, this is very much a case-by-case analysis that must be done. Harm to the potential market is only one factor.
Yes and no. I like reaction videos but not where a person who does absolutely nothing puts a video he ripped (and monetizes it) and just stares in to oblivion (And his reactions seemed forced anyways).
And this is a guy who was called out on his laziness before, so I'm sure there are earlier videos showing a more clear example of what I'm saying.
That's a can of worms. How do you even begin to measure that? That's the issue.
If you want to call out shitty efforts I'm not arguing against that, but recognize them as shitty efforts and not as endemic of the style of video.
Right. Where's the line between 'absolutely nothing' and 'something'?
If you're not leaving up to viewers to decide the kind of things they want to watch then then you have to create some kind of criteria.
Well that's the thing isn't it?
These people do get copyright strikes due to posting the whole video (not all the time). It's obvious what they should do in order to avoid that. Do a little bit more editing, take out the stuff in where they do and say nothing, pause the video and provide some actual non-forced opinions, it could be a small rant or just complaining and provide us with some laughs with content of their own. The latter doesn't have to be them making an animation, maybe just them performing an action instead of them sitting on their butt, like a vine.
They don't have to do what they're doing to the entire selection of videos on youtube. They just don't. It's pointless, it's non-engaging and it's theft. People mostly look at the videos in the reaction video because they don't do or say anything that directs the attention to them and not the video in the video.
Again, I'm not talking about reaction videos in general, I'm talking about what people like Jinx do. Sitting on their ass watching a video that we could be watching but instead came to their videos because we thought there would be something interesting to behold in their reactions. We're watching a video of a person watching (and nothing else) a video.
These people do get copyright strikes due to posting the whole video (not all the time). It's obvious what they should do in order to avoid that. Do a little bit more editing, take out the stuff in where they do and say nothing, pause the video and provide some actual non-forced opinions, it could be a small rant or just complaining and provide us with some laughs with content of their own. The latter doesn't have to be them making an animation, maybe just them performing an action instead of them sitting on their butt, like a vine.
They don't have to do what they're doing to the entire selection of videos on youtube. They just don't. It's pointless, it's non-engaging and it's theft. People mostly look at the videos in the reaction video because they don't do or say anything that directs the attention to them and not the video in the video.
Again, I'm not talking about reaction videos in general, I'm talking about what people like Jinx do. Sitting on their ass watching a video that we could be watching but instead came to their videos because we thought there would be something interesting to behold in their reactions. We're watching a video of a person watching (and nothing else) a video.
I'm not sure how it can be argued that reaction videos (that show the entirety of the original tv show) can't have a negative impact on the original content creators. Outside of youtube/other free websites, most content creators monetize their work by restricting it in some way (usually paying to purchase, sometimes making individual episodes temporarily available in order to push towards a larger streaming service), and these types of reaction videos just make the content freely available.
While a person who has paid for the show may want to watch a reaction afterwards, a person who has yet to pay could use it to avoid ever needing to pay (just by finding a person whose reactions are tolerable). To use a strawman argument, "At that point why not just pirate it?" Which, while a good question, also doesn't really show why these types of reaction videos should be seen as legitimate in any way.
Obviously, this doesn't apply to reaction videos that just edit out snippets of the original show and cut it down to a few minutes.
While a person who has paid for the show may want to watch a reaction afterwards, a person who has yet to pay could use it to avoid ever needing to pay (just by finding a person whose reactions are tolerable). To use a strawman argument, "At that point why not just pirate it?" Which, while a good question, also doesn't really show why these types of reaction videos should be seen as legitimate in any way.
Obviously, this doesn't apply to reaction videos that just edit out snippets of the original show and cut it down to a few minutes.
The One and Done
Member
Can't be mad at someone making a living. Blame the demand not the reactor.
A Link to the Past
Banned
I won't argue that reaction videos are high-quality or even very good usually, but they are transformative. We're going to see them to watch people react to things that we usually have already seen ourselves. While not putting them on the same level of quality, I can watch a full-length movie on rifftrax, and I don't think anyone will dispute that their riff of SMB: The Movie is a transformative work.
CadetMahoney
Member
I see it as the natural evolution of youtube monetizing with absolute minimal effort.
- peoples faces (free)
- fake reaction (free)
- webcam (had one or get a cheap one)
- source material (pirated or just saved from another youtube)
- software (some free one that has a basic picture-in-picture effect)
I don't know much about them but they provide a copy of SMB?
SMB: The Movie as in 'the Super Mario Bros movie', I think.
Basically the point, as I understand it, is that the Rifftrax commentary for the movie makes it a better film, showing that simply commenting on a thing can transform the entertainment value of the content.
What? They ask for the rights for the 'full movie' first before doing ones where it's bundled with the movie. For movies they didn't ask for the rights (especially bigger movies), they have 'audio only' Rifftrax that you put along side the movie otherwise they'd be sued out the ass. That's why it's called Rifftrax in the first place, because it's an 'audio track' of riffing on a movie that isn't necessarily paired with the movie.
The whole point of things 'being transformative' is for legal purposes in the eyes of the law regarding copyright, and for the end product to be 'different enough' from the original to hold up in court. If Rifftrax was truly transformative enough for them to simply add in a commentary audio track on top of a movie they didn't ask for, why do they avoid doing so regarding movies they didn't ask the rights to 'cover'? I can tell you for certain it's not because it's out of the niceness of their hearts - it's for legal reasons.
ZackieChan
Member
Because being "transformative" is only part of one of four factors that need to be weighed. If you're transformative, but use the entire work and are doing it for commercial purposes, the transformative aspect may still lose out. This context is extremely important in this discussion.
Yeah, fair enough. Thus we loop back around to 'reactions on youtube' having even less contribution than Rifftrax does sometimes (by virtue of not even being commentary and sometimes almost complete silence) and when they're just the unedited product in its entirety (which is the vast majority of these) and the Youtuber's monetizing the content (commercial purposes) they have even less of a leg to stand on than if Rifftrax decided to go 'fuck copyright law' and release Rifftrax with movies they didn't ask for rights to use bundled with them.
That depends on what kind of reaction videos you're talking about. It's clear that not all of them provide enough substance to be called transformative.
But have any YouTubers struggled to get a reaction to one of their videos taken down?
YouTube has processes for reporting content, so is that the issue.
From what I understand that isn't the issue, it's "this is lazy and these guys are making money off of it". It comes across as jealousy.
If you uploaded a commentary atop a movie on YouTube the owners of the movie wouldn't have a hard time getting it taken down. Do YouTubers have a hard time getting reactions to their videos taken down? If so, that's a problem. If not, where's the issue?
A Link to the Past
Banned
Okay, I'm back for one more post just to make a point about this post because it's very important, because you are absolutely correct.
Even in Creative Commons licensed works, there is varying ability to use different works. Some licenses don't allow remixing or commercial usage of the work and fair use doesn't excuse this.
In the case of lets players, the experience presented is absolutely required to make the video make any semblance of sense. There is no reference or ability to gauge the situation without them playing the game and showing you what they are playing. Even then, let's players get into legal scruffles constantly. It's why you see lets players be very very careful with licensed music and other media.
What I say about lets players is also true of channels like h3h3. From the few videos I've seen, they are more of a critique and review channel than a "react" channel in terms of content. Of which, the critique they do requires reference which they do via clips and examples.
It's important to look at these kind of examples to gauge these situations.
The reaction channels talked about in this thread do not have these distictions. They are effectively "let's watch" channels. Someone doing this to licensed media such as a movie, short film or tv show would not be tolerated, and should face the same legal scrutiny with respect to YouTube videos.
But I'm not even talking about strictly Youtubers 'struggling to get reactions taken down.' In those cases, it's like trying to stomp out cockroaches - you try to get one taken down, they comply, but five hundred more people upload a video of themselves reacting to your content in full.
The particular situation I'M talking about already HAS people struggling to get their content taken down - the example I posted on the very first page of this thread, an entire episode of anime, is a constant war being fought on Youtube. Aniplex, for example, sends cease and desists all the damn time to people unlawfully using their copyrighted content on Youtube, including "reaction channels" - and then, some of them to somehow skirt the content ID algorithm or avoid being spotted by the copyrights ninjas, 'reverse the video' so it's facing the other way - still technically watchable, but reversed so that content ID doesn't give them a strike against their channel.
Yet another example here. This guy put extra bullshit on top of the video and reversed it to avoid the copyright ninjas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu_9i4De5rY
It doesn't matter what I think personally - I think copyright law as it stands is outdated and a dinosaur in the internet age.
https://youtu.be/c5Gde-5FRWA
GradeA covers on this topic very well.
He covers things on what reactions should be doing and covers what some reactors are actually doing wrong.
I agree that reaction videos should have a bit of effort in terms of putting out highlights, thoughts, analysis, comends and critiques and all that stuff.
Not just take the video watch it and end the video right after the video used for the reaction ends.
GradeA covers on this topic very well.
He covers things on what reactions should be doing and covers what some reactors are actually doing wrong.
I agree that reaction videos should have a bit of effort in terms of putting out highlights, thoughts, analysis, comends and critiques and all that stuff.
Not just take the video watch it and end the video right after the video used for the reaction ends.
People reversing copyrighted content is nothing new of YouTube. As I've said before in the thread that's an issue that doesn't really have anything to do with reactions. That could be something that future YouTube search algorithms deal with.
The issue would be if reaction videos couldn't be taken down for using someone copyrighted content, and that doesn't seem to be the case.
If that's the issue people have then fair enough, but as I've said, it has nothing to do with reaction videos. There doesn't seem to be a problem with reported copyrighted content being taken down, even if it's part of the reaction video. That's quite a bit different from a fellow YouTubers video; a reaction video would be available with the same ease and cost as the source video in that case.
It makes sense that people might use a reaction video to watch an episode of an anime (ones that are unavailable on YouTube), but that same logic doesn't apply directly to people reacting to other YouTube videos.
The issue would be if reaction videos couldn't be taken down for using someone copyrighted content, and that doesn't seem to be the case.
If that's the issue people have then fair enough, but as I've said, it has nothing to do with reaction videos. There doesn't seem to be a problem with reported copyrighted content being taken down, even if it's part of the reaction video. That's quite a bit different from a fellow YouTubers video; a reaction video would be available with the same ease and cost as the source video in that case.
It makes sense that people might use a reaction video to watch an episode of an anime (ones that are unavailable on YouTube), but that same logic doesn't apply directly to people reacting to other YouTube videos.
All right, I understand where you're coming from now. For some reason, before this point, I wasn't really getting your 'central point.'
Here's the thing - I did say in the opening post that I don't mind 'reactions to stuff.' I was that kid who looks at someone else watching something I like to see how much they like that one cool moment.
As for 'taken down for using someone else's copyright content,' here's what Youtube has to say:
"If you believe your copyright-protected work was posted on YouTube without authorization, you may submit a copyright infringement notification. These requests should only be submitted by the copyright owner or an agent authorized to act on the owner’s behalf."
This means that random people can't report these videos - they have to send an email to the original creator or notify them somehow. This means that the original creator has to be made aware of the content infringement - who's going to be the guy who compiles a giant email of several thousand Youtubers and (in the case of a copyrighted episode of anime) it's gonna have to be in Japanese, unless the receiving end knows English.
You can't just 'report' something for possibly having someone's copyrighted content. That is for the protection of artists, but like everything it can be abused for some people's personal gain. This is why bigger companies have teams of people dedicated to crawling Youtube for content infringing on copyright.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Ultimately I will concede that I think people should edit reaction videos, if only in order to eliminate downtime. I'd also be curious to see if anyone ever conducted a study on the potential harm of reaction videos.
Oppo
Member
I don't consider these to be transformative. it's just commentary ultimately. fine for openly viewed things like press conferences. bad for whole copyrighted works.
I would think the usual time limit should apply. like you would have to edit it down to small chunks of a few seconds per piece of media. And I don't think it's particularly a gray area either. putting the whole episode of a show up like in the OP seems parasitic and lazy.
I would think the usual time limit should apply. like you would have to edit it down to small chunks of a few seconds per piece of media. And I don't think it's particularly a gray area either. putting the whole episode of a show up like in the OP seems parasitic and lazy.
jeez. not only are you guilty of what you accused, you run away after demanding answers so petulantly?Subpar Spatula said:
A Link to the Past
Banned
Like I said, I'd be curious to see how much actual harm is caused by reaction videos. I'm not ashamed to say that I enjoy watching them, as often they give me a chance to reexperience how I felt the first time I watched a video (Too Many Cooks, for instance).
Oppo
Member
extremely hard to measure. maybe impossible. like measuring impacts of piracy. always going to be nebulous.
- Status