Fox Station Copyright Strikes YouTuber’s Documentary Over Use Of 1 Minute Clip
from the journalist-on-journalist-violence dept
I’m going to kick this post off by stipulating to a couple of facts. First, the primary subject of this post is YouTuber Andrew Callaghan. Callaghan has both something of a checkered past as a YouTuber, having had his most recent channel briefly taken down over claims of spreading COVID-19 misinformation, but in which he’s also produced some interesting content. Callaghan has also had allegations made against him in the past by several women as to inappropriate sexual advances and pressuring, with the YouTuber disputing many of those allegations alongside an apology for some of his behavior. He is, as they say, a complicated character.
My second stipulation is that I have not watched the documentary he produced that is also the subject of this post, which was a deep dive into residents of the Las Vegas Tunnels. That being said, the documentary originally received a fairly sizable viewership.
In recent months, he’s been working on a new documentary. The film is an hour and 37-minute journey into the Las Vegas Tunnels — where hundreds of unhoused people live underground. On March 28, Callaghan released the full film on YouTube. It rapidly gained more than a million views over the weekend.
But suddenly, Callaghan noticed the video was gone. YouTube had issued him a copyright strike without any warning.
“There was no option, no prior warnings. Just like literally, one second there, the next second gone,” Callaghan told Passionfruit.
The details here are going to be important, so we’ll need to see how some of this shakes out. But from the article, Callaghan used a 1 minute clip of FOX5 content that involved clips relevant to the overall documentary, which is much longer in length. The documentary is obviously a piece of journalistic content, though it is unclear at this point if Callaghan added any direct commentary pertaining to these clips as well as what percentage of the used clips is related to the overall FOX5 content. Those would be questions within the four factor test should this go to trial.
But from the outside looking in, this all certainly smells like fair use.
Fair use law is notoriously vague, often in journalists’ favor. Courts apply a four-part analysis in the Copyright Act to determine whether use is “fair.” The key questions consider whether a work is truly “transformative,” whether the amount of copyrighted material used was appropriate, whether the user had “good intent,” and whether there is significant economic harm to the copyright holder.
Courts, however, usually deem documentaries fair use (even if creators monetize them) due to their highly edited and educational nature. And, regardless of the legal standing, FOX5 taking down a fellow journalist trying to educate viewers about a good cause seems a bit bizarre.
Bizarre indeed, considering these are clips of past broadcasts, so it’s difficult to understand what harm FOX5 would have suffered as a result of the use of those clips in the first place. If there is no real harm to FOX5, the channel could have simply left all of this alone without further consequence. Instead, it issued the copyright strike, which resulted in the takedown of the entire documentary at a critical time for the film.
For Callaghan, the consequences of the takedown were particularly brutal. He spent months on the documentary, which aimed to help the community in the tunnels and the Shine A Light nonprofit. He also says he spent over $20,000 for the film’s voiceovers in Spanish, German, Brazilian Portuguese, French and German.
The sudden removal was also strange because Callaghan is a YouTube Partner. Creators receive advanced benefits from the program, including human support lines.
But in this case, YouTube presented him with fairly limited appeal options. Callaghan said he tried to contact his designated YouTube partner liaison. But the liaison told him he had to settle the dispute directly with the content owner, FOX5. According to YouTube’s process, FOX5 had 10 business days to respond.
The film is still unwatchable on YouTube as of the time of this writing. It is available on Callaghan’s Patreon page, however, so it’s not like FOX5 even fully disappeared the film.
Whether this is truly an instance of fair use content being taken down is a question that will have to wait for the appeal process to be worked through. Again, from the outside that’s the way it looks. But at a bare minimum, we can say that FOX5 appears to be behaving in an overly protective fashion to take down a fellow journalistic piece of content.
Filed Under: andrew callaghan, copyright, documentary, fair use, las vegas, las vegas tunnels
Companies: fox5, youtube


Comments on “Fox Station Copyright Strikes YouTuber’s Documentary Over Use Of 1 Minute Clip”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Good.
Content creators should protect and defend their IP.
Re:
So you alao agree that Callaghan has the right to defend his work too.
Why don’t you go over to his Patreon and hand him some money, eh?
Re: Re:
Because I don’t value their content.
Re: Re: Re:
So you’ll stand up for Bayside Advisory, but not Andrew Callaghan?
What is it with copyright law and their consistency to find the worst possible white knights?
Re:
The sourness of your grapes has been noted.
Re:
Define “IP”. Does that include the fair use provisions contained in the copyright law? If not, why do you not believe in the law as written?
So, how long have you been regularly taking hallucinogens, AC?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re:
Just long enough to think all creators can afford to defend their IP, but not quite long enough to miss the “reply” button.
It doesn’t matter. Callaghan’s use of Fox’s content is for news reporting rather than parody, so it doesn’t have to be critical of either the professionally produced content or anyone connected with it.
Re:
It does matter in terms of fair use.
Re: Re:
No, it doesn’t.
Re:
IANAL, but the copyright lawyers (who certainly have their own biases) commenting around this issue have expressed they believe the fair use analysis is frustratingly more complicated than that.
To my understanding of the argument: If I have a news story about trump, I don’t necessarily have carte-blanche to use any photo I want of Trump without regard to copyright. The photo isn’t the subject of reporting, so the reporting provision fair use clause doesn’t cover it.
Now, in context, I expect the fox news clip to have been used to directly evidence claims being made in the documentary, thereby qualifying as reporting for fair use purposes. But to my understanding of the state of the law, simply being news commentary does not absolve the requirement for a journalistic nexus between the story being reported and the content being fairly used.
Re: Re:
Sigh that was me. And to be clear, when I say “lawyers commenting around this issue, I mean lawyers commenting on the issue of when fair use applies generally.
Re: Re:
Wrongo!
Re: Re:
Nobody said you have, the argument was that the use doesn’t have to be critical of the photographer or their agency if they work for one in order to qualify as fair use for the purpose of news reporting. Do keep up.
The real reason is right wing assholes love there to be an underclass.
Some lawyer or firm is earning their retainer making sure that no one steals the very very valuable media coverage.
See also: CFAA b/c URLS are super sekrit
I’d have to take exception to categorizing a “FOX news” channel as “journalistic” in any way, shape, or form other than coincidental. I expect the take-down is due to their “own the libs” policy being violated by someone else using their “IP” for purposes contrary to their own.
Re:
FOX5 is, notably, not the same thing as “Fox News.”
Re: Re:
But it is a Fox affiliate, so same difference.
This wouldn’t change the underlying issues, but the station here (KVVU) is just a Fox affiliate, instead of an O&O. It’s actually owned by Gray Television, which bought the stations of longtime owner Meredith a few years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVVU-TV