Caveat Productorem

This is something of a follow-up to my previous post on the closure of Blip with an added twist which applies to plagiarism and media ownership. There's a lot of Internet content provider politics going on in this Geek Juice Media* article, but the bottom line is that one Youtube channel was able to make money off of a competitor's videos through a copyright claim. 

Youtube has had numerous problems in the past with frivolous and malicious claims from content owners when it comes to reviewers. It's generally held that movie clips are fair use for purposes of commentary when under a certain length. From all appearances, this is a blackmail attempt for Network A to absorb Network B because Network B did a commentary on one of their videos. This does not entitle Network A to profit from that commentary video, which it did with this copyright claim until it was reversed. There's a lot of evidence from Network B's owner to demonstrate that Network A is acting maliciously including threats (admittedly hearsay) from Network B. 

The majority of online video content providers are returning to Youtube despite its copyright system flaws because of Blip's closure and the lack of other media tools. Does this count as plagiarism? On the one hand, the material in question is commentary and not the original product, but on the other, the money is going to the wrong person for work that they didn't do. Perhaps in the near future, better disclaimers about material ownership will be necessary for video projects.