Photos on youtube videos. Legal?

SJX

SJX

Veteran
I'm wondering if all the videos using photos of products and other things on youtube are doing something illegal? They are sure monetized. Maybe a gray area? I know you can't use somebody's photo without permission. But I'm talking about photos released by a manufacturer. Like official photos of the iphone and other cell phones, of cameras, cars etc. Is this legal to use because the manufacturer releases the photos to the public, since they are publicity photos? Or are they all leaning on fair use? I know if somebody for example take photo of an iphone and post online, people need his permission to use the photo Even if he doesn't own the iphone rights. But he owns the photo rights. But how it works with publicity photos ?
 
For what purpose?

“Fair Use” is a bit nuanced, but in the US it allows for certain uses in news reporting, criticism, and education without getting copyright permissions or paying royalties. It may not apply the same way where you are. You really do need to consult an attorney to get a reliable definition.
 
What you are talking about is a legal minefield. It's not for nothing that twenty years ago, intellectual property law became one of the hottest areas of specilization at law schools.
Also, FWIW, most equipment manufacturers release publicity photos of their gear and are happy for anyone and everyone to use the heck out of them because it's free publicity and
exposure for their products but that doesn't mean that you are legally protected to use them. If you use them and are slandering or talking trash about a product or company, that
could be riskier than using them in a way that helsp or promotes the products image.

That said, the Fair Use that Alex talks about, I have a friend who produced a documentary and after screening it, I was astounded by how much copyrighted material she boldly used
under the guise of Fair Use. I used to do some clearances when I worked a production company and I guesstimated that if she would have licensed the footage she used in her documentary,
it would have cost over a million dollars, easily in licensing fees, not to mention family/estate/heir permissions that could costs a fortune and performance licenses, and SAG/AFTRA and ASCAP/BMI
fees for various things.

She actually hired a legal firm that recognizes, analyzes and gives an endorsement for what filmmakers can safely use under Fair Use laws. She paid this firm perhaps $5,000.00 for this service.
I thought it was a clever strategy for a no budget documentary, but this is all different than social media use like you are talking about. When in doubt, hire a lawyer. Trolling the Internet for anonymous
advice from strangers about legal decisions that could potentially cost you everything you own is not a wise idea. Talk to an entertainment/intellectual property lawyer. Period.
 
Manufacturers generally will permit you to use their images, and often send you hi=res ones, once they know what they are for. Using them and 'assuming' they will be happy is just too risky. I've used this system on YouTube videos, and nobody refused, but two were just impossible to get responses from, so I took pictures myself of those ones.
 
I think there is no way those youtubers pay anybody $5000 for advice. And there is lots of critic and putting down too. For example videos about cars criticizing it for its flaws etc. Maybe because it's critic it falls straight and safe under fair use? I don't know. Slander is of course different. But I think criticize a product while analyzing it is what fair use is actually for? So to say the new iphone sucks because it is behind the competition or because it has not this or that feature or because it's ugly or whatever reason is fine. Talk bad about apple and make accusations etc is slander. But criticize the product is fair use and freedom of speech? Because youtubers are getting away somehow. I doubt if companies had a case to sue they would not sue. If they could they would stop the critics. There is this guy who flatout says Chevy is lying about the new corvette etc. He's very popular youtuber. Anyway the many channels are there, for years now. So I guess they didn't get sued. I doubt they take too much time to look. Some youtubers upload once a week or even everyday. It's a volume game if you want to make money. It's quick turn around. Maybe this case is more like news? Sure different from movies where you must clear everything.
 
SJX said:
Maybe because it's critic it falls straight and safe under fair use? I don't know. Slander is of course different. But I think criticize a product while analyzing it is what fair use is actually for?
Click to expand...

Just to reiterate:

Alex H. said:
You really do need to consult an attorney to get a reliable definition.
Click to expand...

puredrifting said:
Trolling the Internet for anonymous
advice from strangers about legal decisions that could potentially cost you everything you own is not a wise idea. Talk to an entertainment/intellectual property lawyer. Period.
Click to expand...
 
Not worth it paying to talk to a lawyer for that. It's not like I will do it myself. I'm merely curious how they are getting away with it. Because they are and I doubt they are paying lawyers. They not producing Hollywood movies. And honestly why the advice have to be tailored to you if they are all doing the same thing? I think there is such thing as general guidelines. No youtuber can afford to pay lawyers for this. It's not hollywood. ;) But I'm just curious if anybody knows how they are getting away. Just making conversation. This is what the off topic forum here is for right.
 
Last edited:
SJX said:
Not worth it paying to talk to a lawyer for that. It's not like I will do it myself. I'm merely curious how they are getting away with it. Because they are and I doubt they are paying lawyers. They not producing Hollywood movies. And honestly why the advice have to be tailored to you if they are all doing the same thing? I think there is such thing as general guidelines. No youtuber can afford to pay lawyers for this. It's not hollywood. ;) But I'm just curious if anybody knows how they are getting away. Just making conversation. This is what the off topic forum here is for right.
Click to expand...

Getting off topic and being a little pedantic, but you may want to clarify that, because there are "YouTubers" making $100K's to millions of dollars a year.
 
But you’re posing a question that can get dangerous to try and answer without legal credentials. Other people read these threads, and some of those believe anything they’ll read on the Internet.

Yes, there are lots of YouTubers who use PR photos from product manufacturers. Are they simply getting away with it because they haven’t been caught or reported? Or does it qualify as fair use since they’re discussing merits and shortcomings of the products? Who knows for sure but an attorney?
 
But you’re posing a question that can get dangerous to try and answer without legal credentials. Other people read these threads, and some of those believe anything they’ll read on the Internet.

Yes, there are lots of YouTubers who use PR photos from product manufacturers. Are they simply getting away with it because they haven’t been caught or reported? Or does it qualify as fair use since they’re discussing merits and shortcomings of the products? Who knows for sure but an attorney?
 
Run&Gun said:
Getting off topic and being a little pedantic, but you may want to clarify that, because there are "YouTubers" making $100K's to millions of dollars a year.
Click to expand...

Yes but they didn't start that big and making so much money. They had to get away with it first even if now they pay lawyers.
 
Alex H. said:
But you’re posing a question that can get dangerous to try and answer without legal credentials. Other people read these threads, and some of those believe anything they’ll read on the Internet.

Yes, there are lots of YouTubers who use PR photos from product manufacturers. Are they simply getting away with it because they haven’t been caught or reported? Or does it qualify as fair use since they’re discussing merits and shortcomings of the products? Who knows for sure but an attorney?
Click to expand...

So you are just concerned about being taken serious and held accountable to what you say? It's all just speculations.

Yes I'm sure the ones just praising the products have nothing to worry about. They are making a free commercial for the product. But I'm more talking about the ones who criticize. For example a video titled Here is why ferrari makes me sick. Ferrari is very litigious. Another video is titled Here’s Why Toyota Makes Good Cars and Chevy Makes Bad Cars. This is just some which caught my attention. I also think the big companies will probably not sue a youtuber. They probably will just send a cease and desist letter or something. If youtube stops he is fine.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top