“Fair use typically allows for 30 seconds of uninterrupted footage, but with YouTube laws, it’s typically around 5-7 seconds.”

Toei would unlikely be down for such a deal. Though that’s sorta what Nintendo has done. They were issuing tons of DMCA takedowns to lets players on youtube and then they came up with some program for creators to join and be able to monetize their videos using nintendo IPs.

It would be incredible unfair if it was on a whim. Though there is a case of earlier this year a Dragonball (Toei owned property) video being stricken and then returning to his channel. Whether it coming back is to the benefit of Mark’s case against the 150 strikes or it being a precursor for Toei is debatable.

Yea I knew about the need to defend your copyright. I replied to another that it may be the case that Toei is doing it here.

I wonder if Youtube has contry/ region restriction abilities. So maybe he wins the use of the videos and then has to win it in every other country but never in Japan? Or conversely, the videos remain down in japan but are immediately available elsewhere.

It wouldn’t for the majority of people, but I listen to his videos more than watch them haha

Unrelated to this comment but relevant to the topic.

He had a couple videos taken down before as well, presumably by Toei since it was atleast 1 Dragonball video. I had it in my queue and days later it was removed. Some time after it returned and after that I made sure to watch his videos as soon as I could out of fear that they would go missing. I woulda thought he’d…

Counter to this. I believe Toei is losing money due to the reproduction of their properties in a non-sanctioned way which would, in their ideal world, be funneled into their official means and gaining money thanks to the free advertisement of the properties from the work of totally not mark. Toei is probably seizing…

Well I would agree about lenience. I believe there’s copyright law amendments that allow arguments for no longer having rights if a copyright is not protected. So if Disney allowed a reputable company to produce Mickey Mouse product and they did nothing, they would then not be able to go after a new company doing the…

That’s just semantics. Toei approached, afforded the oppurtunity, wanted, asked Mark to do a promotional video. It’s Toei wanting to sponsor a video in order to promote something.

But we are all arguing here on the internet! Of course what is legal is what will matter in the end, but unfortunately getting to court will take 3 months at minimum according to Mark. Which is just unfeasible for any content creator. I’m a consumer of his content and had looked forward to his video essays…

Dude, the argument of the amount of a piece of work being used isn’t the strongest argument. Albeit the music industry has the part where you can’t use more than 10 seconds or something of a song before you get stricken. As far as I know, there isn’t a movie/ video version of this. If there was then I hope it’s in the…

The point Mark made in the response video about the strikes coming minutes or possibly seconds apart felt very poignant on initial viewing. But after some thought, it possibly makes sense. Playing devil’s advocate and saying Toei did their proper diligence, perhaps they had some group review the videos at double speed…

This is incomplete. Sure he does give a cliff notes version of the overall story. But he points out the significance of scenes, dialogue, and actions. The thoughtfulness put into the artwork, story telling structure, and call backs/ setups from dozens to hundreds of chapters beforehand. He definitely adds more…

If Toei won those cases in a legal sense, then that hinders the chances for Mark. Since the example from power girl are (for lack of better phrasing) fairer towards the content creator vs the company originating the content.

But owning an anime DVD doesn’t mean you can charge people as a company to come see the movie in whatever venue you choose. Meaning, Mark’s profiting off the visuals created by Toei employees isn’t wholly legal via Japan’s non-clear fair use laws

Making their work better is a far stretch. It promotes the work, enhances the intent, and/ or makes the intent clearer for those who didn’t dig as deep.

Maybe no original visual content, but there is some transformative work being done with the stitching of scenes, adding filters for effect, voice over commentary. It’s not wholly original to be sure, the problem being is it transformative enough. Maybe this will be the case to finally settle this in courts, though…

The beginning of your argument is kinda weak, but the point you make is completely valid. This also acts as promotion to have people get interested and invest (in any way they can) into the media. Be it streaming, buying, or otherwise. For the company it’d be one of the first two.