Ad hominem engaged. >what fair use is
In relation to parodies, it's literally a case of is this claiming to be the original? Is this claiming the copyrighted character? Is it recreative, used to critique or comedic? Is it reusing original assets owned by the copyright holder? If it has any of those factors, the fair use for parody tends to win out and the company is fucked. That's why you still get the Elsa/Spiderman channel or the Spooderman/Batman videos on Youtube because they fall under the comedy/parody thing and neither actively claims the characters. If fucking Disney can't get that shit taken down or stop the ad revenue from them, they are pretty water tight.>If your dumbass made an entire channel that revolves around someone else's IP
Which exist. See above.>it needs to be so firmly defensible that no lawyer would want to bother
Or it just needs to be a parody or critque, which is what 90% of parody and fair use falls under. Disney literally had a gravestone destroyed because it had their brand on it. >you're only using as much of the IP as you need to make your commentary
The only time this factors in is when you make a critic video and use original footage from a movie/tv show and then it's determined that roughly 5 seconds is enough to make your point unless it was a publically posted piece like a trailer. RLM literally had this legal issue when they used the clip of Tom Cruise screaming on a loop because it was 10 seconds long but they looped it for comedic effect since WB went after them. WB lost that one because it was transformative and parody in nature. they would have no defense but hey ho, it's still online. >you can't construct your own special lore
Yes you can. You just can't claim the brand or character. >can't sell Super Mario T-shirts
That one literally uses the SMB3 Mario on it which is a copyright infringement but it falls under a parody and they can't stop it. Transformative and parody etc.