Just playing the devil's advocate, "Fair Use" could be an interesting question here...I think it would fail the "academic use" rule, but worth consideration, if the criteria (from standford.edu) is:

1. The least amount of copyright material as possible should be used.

2. "Fair use" work must have significant new and unique material added (not be a compilation).

3. "Fair use" work must not harm future potential markets for the copyright work. (ex: not a highlight video)

4. Work must be either a parody, criticism, review, or "academic use" to qualify for "fair use".

If we're talking a 10s clip of audio where the original is significantly longer, I think the most significant question is whether the work could qualify under the legal term category of "academic/educational". A work can only be considered "academic/educational" if it meets all of the following (also from stanford.edu):

1. Noncommercial instruction or curriculum-based teaching by educators to students at nonprofit educational institutions.

2. Planned noncommercial study or investigation directed toward making a contribution to a field of knowledge.

3. Presentation of research findings at noncommercial peer conferences, workshops, or seminars.

I don't know the legal muster required to meet this, but from what I've read, this is where "almost all" youtube videos are going to be disqualified, especially by the intent of the rule, which is to provide an out for teachers/instructors and students.

The whole argument is rendered null by the fact that youtube has to comply with the DMCA, which requires that work be taken down if it contains work created by other people (clips, background music, photos), though.

Also youtube seems to have a fairly flexible amount of power here, can take down pretty much any content it wants, and if it chooses to side with the copyright side by default, they have the power to make that consideration.

My opinion is that if you're going to be creating content, and advertising and/or monetizing them, you really shouldn't have any copyright work in there. Saying "it's only 10 seconds of the work" may provide some legal footing for the "must have significant new work" rule, but it seems like you're just drawing an arbitrary line in the sand and saying your side is okay, whereas youtube owns both sides and the whole beach.

user:	relic
created:	October 20, 2012
karma:	51