Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn
I skimmed through the video. The majority of the video is primarily the original video from the Verge with Kyle's face inset in the corner. That doesn't fall under Fair Use, or rather, if it does, it's going to be a LOT harder to prove. Most of Kyle's contributions seem to be riffing on the Verge's video. He'd need to prove that it is in fact a transformative work, but it's trash-tier parody and/or commentary at best. There actually is a case for copyright infringement here, as is the case with the vast majority of reaction videos.
If passive commentary (usually under the form of parody) of what is essentially a full, unedited work were copyright infringement, then how could things like Mystery Science Theater 3000 exist? (I'm no fan of it, just old enough to remember it and have seen it on TV a long time ago.)
That isn't a rhetorical question, but a serious one. I would imagine that maybe the creators of that show got permission, I also recall that most of the movies they parodied were extremely old (maybe the studios that made them no longer existed).
Still, commenting on a full work while including it is something that has been done basically since the dawn of time (or Western Civilization) as far as I know- I'm pretty sure there's a rich history of this in literature. Didn't a lot of philosophers do full commentaries on things like Homer? What is worse: including parts of the material, which can then be quoted out of context and used to argue points that are the exact opposite of what the original work says, with no way of telling from the commentary... or the full thing?
I agree with the other people, this causes a "chilling effect" and stifles free speech, and it is always the big guy (e.g. media conglomerates) going after small folk, never the other way around. And I have nothing against the free press or media, being extremely liberal myself, but this is a dangerous precedent. That's enough political stuff though, don't want to get an "infringement" here. >.>