Thread by @TrevorMahlmann

I believe you should be removed from YouTube for using your platform to belittle smaller creators in this way. (thread)

@thunderf00t recently used my Starship SN9 footage commercially & without permission/credit. For many reasons, this use is not "fair use" as I will describe:

I thought to myself when I saw the initial video, there are two paths forward with this:
1. I could tweet/publicize this misuse on social media and make a stir for this YouTuber.
2. I could reach out directly/handle the matter privately, as I have done several times before.

.@ColdFusion_TV being one of these. I reached out to CF in 2018 regarding in a very similar way with a Falcon Heavy photo that was used without permission / used commercially on YouTube.

We handled compensation privately. Nothing else happened.

Beautiful, isn't it?

I chose the 2nd option, and reached out yesterday privately to try and handle the matter amicably via email.

Thunderf00t quickly responded this morning citing "fair use.

Unfortunately, Thunderf00t (Phil Mason) then doubled down on his thinking that this use was "fair use" and has made a 20 minute video hate brigading his followers to spam / threaten me. (titled "I'm being sued") I choose not to waste my time watching.

The title: I'm being sued

My take: No one is suing anyone.

I am asking for reasonable compensation per my usual (and frankly, very similar industry rate) for using my footage in the video. That's it.

Ask anyone: ABC News, Russia Today, The Daily Mail, PetaPixel, all these respectable outlets have a similar rate to use footage for their productions.

All of which I have worked with previously to license footage / photography / or both.

Beautiful, isn't it?

Despite Phil's best efforts to make this a big stir, I will not stoop to his pettiness and hate brigading.

I would like and prefer a reasonable compensation for using my footage, as I have described in my original email, this thread, and diverted from this ask nowhere.

I ask my followers and readers of this post: do not spread hate on my behalf.

I, in shocking contrast to his YouTube channel hellbent on being factual, will do just that in this thread.

The subscribers have all left the video to go leave hate all across my platforms.

My email, social media comments, etc are all filled with this garbage:

For a channel that is filled with videos "busting" everything from spacex, Elon Musk, etc: it is not very surprising that this hate is what Phil wishes to use his channel to spread throughout the internet, and the world, and upon smaller creators like me.

Fair Use (broadly) is a way to use copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder/creator. (me/my video in this instance)

It has four parts/columns that each need to be considered:

The Four points of Fair Use:

1. the purpose/character of the use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. the amount or substantiality of the portion used
4. the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the work.

1. the purpose of the use

Thunderf00t asks for directly and takes donations via links in the description to support his work on YouTube. The purpose is clearly, commercial.

1. the character of the use (cont.)

The end (fair) user must “add something new, with a different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message"

The video is just shown bluntly, not given new expression, meaning, or msg: this weighs against fair use.

2. the nature of the copyrighted work

As the footage was largely factual, it shows an event that occurred, this factor likely weighs toward a finding of fair use with #2. However, #2 usually is not significant in the overall fair use balancing & so is certainly not dispositive.

3. the amount or substantiality of the portion used

Here, even though only a small portion of my video was used, that portion is the “heart" of my work which is the most valuable and pertinent portion of Thunderf00t's video. Without the crash, it would not bring TF's video home.

3. the amount or substantiality of the portion used
(cont.)

With this, #3 weighs against fair use.

Notably, cases which take the "heart of the work" (the explosion) have been judged _not_ fair use, in the past.

4. the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the work.

Put simply, I license for use of footage/photography for a fee. If YouTubers were able to fairly use anything I made anywhere without a fee -- my market would be impacted severely/not exist.

4. the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the work. (cont.)

Unfortunately, this brings #4 also weighing against fair use.

In total, that is 3 of 4 weighing heavily against fair use and 1 of 4 weighing in its favor, one that is frequently not significant.

For a YouTube channel that seems hellbent on being factually correct, and having read the above, it is surprising that they do not simply look into the details of "fair use" and instead huddle behind the larger creator and go to hate brigade the smaller one.

It is disappointing to have to disable comments outwardly on my platforms because of this garbage YouTuber spreading hate across the internet, but alas here we are.

All this to say, no one is suing anyone.
I am simply asking for compensation for the use that I

It is also disappointing that this creator needs to bully their way out of their actions instead of owning up to them, apologizing for misusing the footage, and paying for the footage that ties together their production.

The whole channel is built around a grey area of "fair use."

Seems I am just the first person to bark up their tree of genuine copyright infringement.

Finally, it is super disappointing that a creator themselves (seemingly pursuing this career full-time with north of 1,400 Patrons on @Patreon) would go after another smaller creator like this, just to save face to his followers.

Fact > followers?
You be the judge.