week3.html

<title> CS349 Spring 2019: Robert McInvale</title>
<h1 style = "font-size:300%;"><b> Robert McInvale CS 349 Blog</h1></b>
<h2 style = "font-size:200%;">Week 3 - Examining Copyright (Matt Hoss vs H3H3) </h1></b>

<p>
	&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In early 2016, Matt Hosseinzadeh (known as Matt Hoss) filed suit against h3h3Productions, a YouTube channel run by Ethan and Hila Klein<sup>1</sup>. Hoss runs a YouTube channel of his own, 
	where he uploads a variety of videos that have frequently been criticized as misogynistic by media and review outlets - including h3h3Productions.
	<br>
	&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;In his suit, Hoss claimed that a video uploaded by the Kleins infringed on his copyright. The video in question is 13 minutes in length, and utilizes 3 minutes of a video that Hoss 
	himself uploaded. The Kleins spend considerable time criticizing Hoss and his work, but also discuss various items pertaining to their own lives<sup>1</sup>.
	<br>
	&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Before filing suit, Hoss reportedly requested that the Kleins take the video down and pay him $4,000 for using his content without permission. The Kleins refused. Hoss then sued them, 
	claiming that their video violated his copyright and caused him damages in an undisclosed amount. The Kleins retaliated by claiming that their use of his video constituted “fair use,” and that their own video was a critique of Hoss’s work.
	At the time, this suit created a considerable stir among the YouTube community; the implications, should Hoss have won, extended far beyond h3h3Productions. For years, YouTube itself had been tightening 
	its restrictions on what kinds of content could be posted on its site, and a sentiment that YouTube was no longer a safe creative space had begun to take root. For YouTubers and YouTube viewers alike, 
	the success of a suit attempting not only to shut down a fair critique video, but also to claim monetary damages from its creators, would have been catastrophic.
	<br>
	&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;However, in August of 2017, the case was resolved in favor of the Kleins and their fair use of Hoss’s video. The presiding judge, Katherine Forrest, commented on the case, saying: 
	<br>
	<br>
<i>“Any review of the Klein video leaves no doubt that it constitutes critical commentary of the Hoss video; there is also no doubt that the Klein video is decidedly 
not a market substitute for the Hoss video. For these and the other reasons set forth below, defendants’ use of clips from the Hoss video constitutes fair use as a matter of law.”</i><sup>2</sup>
	<br>
	<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The YouTube community breathed a collective sigh of relief at this ruling, and the Kleins were permitted to continue to criticize Hoss (which, as might be imagined, 
they have done quite thoroughly since). While the ruling in this case simply upheld the status quo and maintained a reasonable standard of fair use, it is still 
important in that it reinforced and extended this protection within YouTube, which exists at one of the law’s frontiers. 


<p>
<sup>1</sup><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2016/05/26/popular-youtubers-h3h3-productions-prepare-to-defend-fair-use-in-lawsuit/#62f085653695">https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2016/05/26/popular-youtubers-h3h3-productions-prepare-to-defend-fair-use-in-lawsuit/#62f085653695</a><br>
<sup>2</sup><a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2017/08/25/h3h3-productions-scores-tentative-win-for-fair-use-online/#60dee7174d56">https://www.forbes.com/sites/fruzsinaeordogh/2017/08/25/h3h3-productions-scores-tentative-win-for-fair-use-online/#60dee7174d56</a>

</p>