Is it legal to put copyright on your work?

YouTube copyright notifications (takedowns) are creating a hassle for my "fair use" project. At what point do I have a claim for damages?

• My project is a collection of video essays about a TV show, and the original copyrighted video and sound (which I have not licensed) is edited to illustrate my argument, similar to how Siskel & Ebert would do it.  The videos are intended to be inter-referencing (via YouTube annotations), and so if one video is taken down by YouTube, the takedown will also inhibit functionality on the videos (and pages) that reference it. I uploaded 50 videos to YouTube, and 19 of them were automatically flagged with copyright notifications.  I responded promptly with my denial, including the following explanation: “This video is a part of the DVD, “Firefly: A Special Feature” (“FASF”), of which I am the author.  FASF is a commentary on the 2002 TV show “Firefly”.  It is currently being edited, annotated, and published in web format.  All the use of this copyrighted material falls within the scope of “fair use” pursuant to 17 USC § 107.  FASF (1) is transformative in nature; (2) is educational; (3) is independent critical analysis that is unlikely to have been created (or sanctioned) by the copyright-holders; (4) is a work of journalism and review; (5) does not substitute for Firefly in its market; (6) does not unduly harm or depress the market for Firefly; and (7) does not preempt or substitute for a potential market for the Firefly copyright-holders.” Someone (presumably an agent of the legitimate copyright owner) confirmed the notification, and my videos were “removed”.  I promptly completed the counter-notification process for each video, referring again to a fair use defense.  I also included a brief note to the copyright owner: “The YouTube notification process creates a significant delay in the release of my fair-use project.  The delay, along with other problems, is significantly affecting my ability to conduct business.” At the same time, another group of videos have been more recently flagged, and I now need to wait for the same process to again run its course.  This “inefficiency” means another set of delays, and I have dozens more videos that are not yet flagged. Some of my videos cannot be published at all.  The presence of copyright notifications prohibits an account upgrade that would allow for video uploads longer than 15 minutes, even if I have disputed the notifications. The easiest workaround is to chop up the longer videos, but that will complicate and compromise my project structure. Previously, I completed the counter-notification process with several of these same videos that I put up on a different channel.  When those counter-notification took effect, YouTube removed the flags, and the videos were restored. If the copyright owner does not intend to bring court action but instead uses  the notification process to encumber my business model, merely because  they disapprove of my usage and not because they expect to prevail in court, then does that not speak to bad faith or an abuse of the  notification process?  Is the owner shielded from my legal action in this regard, merely by the fact that I used their  material without a license, whether the usage is fair or not? My channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYzNlD6Q1hkpXHS4aQv5xig/featured?view_as=public

• Answer:

  Your assumption that you are entitled to a fair use defense may be at the heart of your problem.  Fair use isn't black and white.  It depends on how much of the original work you're using, whether you're truly engaged in fair use and other factors.