iirc that was a third party acting on behalf of Oversimplified and it got resolved when they worked it out directly (and Oversimplified has a deal where they get the revenue from VTH’s reactions to them anyway) Edit: Not saying it’s a justified use or isn’t a justified use (every time anything like this happens, everyone suddenly becomes an expert on fair use and say completely different things from each other, seems kinda subjective and undefined for now), just pointing out it’s a different situation. As far as I know VTH and Oversimplified are on good terms.

> (and Oversimplified has a deal where they get the revenue from VTH’s reactions to them anyway) Thats actually part of YouTubes system. Anyone who had their video "reacted" to can check a box that diverts the income generated by that reaction video diverted to them.

I love when people post a screenshot and don't include the freely available context. It was 3rd party and both channels settled it amicably

Seems like a habit for this dude

Everytime Oversimplified placed a copyright strike notice against VTH it was appealed and VTH won because YouTube believes that VTH's reaction falls under fair use because it is "transformative".. I'm not giving my opinion that's just what YouTube has decided...

The people who run Oversimplified had to intervene because they support VTH and reactors in general.

Before that happened VTH won the appeals when the company that manages the oversimplified channel sent VTH takedown notices and when they lost the claimed a bunch of videos all at the same time.. That's when VTH reached out on social media platforms and got everything sorted out but before then he had won appeals on a couple of videos..

They didn't win appeals because of free use, if that was the case then oversimplified wouldn't be getting the video revenue. Oversimplified got involved and said you can keep the videos up but you've got to pay me.

He did win the appeals.. They probably ended up coming to that agreement so he didn't keep getting take down notices and they can resubmit take down notices even if they lose an appeal.. So it is probably just easier and less work to agree to demonitize the videos instead of taking them all down cause VTH knows those videos are a way to bring people to his channel and maybe get new subscribers.

Youtube doesn't interject on fair use. It's not legally allowed to under the digital millennium copyright act, YouTube isn't a court. When Cgp Grey completes a DMCA takedown then YouTube takes the video down, VTH then completes a counter notification. If Grey doesn't start legal proceedings then YouTube will reupload the video. At no point is YouTube allowed to rule on if something is fair use otherwise they're liable if the courts say otherwise. VTH has never been to court and never won an appeal, Oversimplified just agreed to allow the video to stay up.

From youtubes help section again not talking about a strike just a content claim.. This is what VTH appealed and won against oversimplified... Dispute a Content ID claim If your video got a Content ID claim, you can dispute a claim if you have a valid reason, such as: Having all the necessary rights to the content in your video. Using the content in a way that qualifies as a copyright exception, such as fair use. Believing your video was misidentified or an error was made. Copyright strikes are different from Content ID claims. If your channel got a copyright strike, go to the copyright strikes article to learn more. When you dispute a Content ID claim, the person that claimed your video (the claimant) is notified. The claimant has 30 days to respond.

That's just straight up not how this works. At no point in the process can YouTube make a decision. There's no way for them to do so in the existing legal framework. Once a creator contests a strike, that contest is sent to the claimant. The claimant must then sue the creator in a court of law, or the takedown becomes invalid. This is the DMCA takedown process, and is something that YouTube has no say in. They are required to implement it to operate in the United States.

HOW THIS works... If a creator doesn't claim a strike but a takedown notice and then the violator has 7 days to take down the video or else they will get a copyright strike.. In that time frame the violator can appeal the takedown notice with youtube and has a YouTube employee look over the appeal and the video then YouTube decides whether or not the violator does need to take down the video within 7 days or if it can stay up. If YouTube decides it needs to be taken down then the channel will get a copyright strike if the video isn't taken down and then the legal process will occur..