Q: Will using clips in my YouTube channel qualify as fair use or require strategy changes?

A: This sounds like an archetypal example of fair use. But that doesn’t mean that you may not receive a copyright claim. That’s because some copyright owners have an arrangement with YouTube where uploaded material is scanned for copyright violations. If you receive this, don’t panic! You can respond to claim fair use, and Google will restore the content. The copyright holder can only dispute your fair use further by taking it to court. I hope this helps!

A: Fair use is determined by four key factors: purpose of use, nature of the copyrighted work, amount used, and effect on the market value. Your plan to add commentary, criticism, and transformative elements through voiceovers and editing strengthens your fair use claim, as does using short clips under 10 seconds. However, monetization can sometimes weaken fair use arguments, particularly if your content could potentially compete with or replace the original works.

While your approach includes many positive fair use elements, YouTube's ContentID system might still flag your videos regardless of legal merit. Attribution is good practice but doesn't automatically make usage legal – fair use depends on how you're using the content, not simply whether you credit sources. Your transformative approach (adding substantial commentary and editing) is more important legally than attribution alone.

You might consider additional risk reduction strategies: use clips only when necessary to illustrate specific points (not just for visual appeal), ensure your commentary adds substantial value beyond the original clip, and perhaps consult with someone knowledgeable about copyright law regarding your specific implementation. Many successful channels navigate this balance by ensuring their commentary remains the primary focus while using clips sparingly and transformatively to support their analysis rather than as the main attraction.