How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask UKSolicitorJA Your Own Question
UKSolicitorJA, Solicitor
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 4312
Experience:  English solicitor with over 12 years experience
Type Your Law Question Here...
UKSolicitorJA is online now

I post music reviews on YouTube and have done so for

This answer was rated:

I post music reviews on YouTube and have done so for over four years without incident. In this video reviews, I don't use any of the music or video footage, but include images of the product (pack shots and unboxings, etc) so that my viewers can see what they might be buying into.
I reviewed an item that was withdrawn from sale many years ago because of a copyright dispute between a band and the item's publisher. I spoke about the item, how it was "banned" and show the item pack shot within the video.
I subsequently had the video flagged and taken down. On investigation, a representative for the band involved had said I had broken copyright by even talking about the item. I believe that this is wrong and I was false flagged as a way of censoring me. In UK and US copyright law, I believe that reviews are exempt from aspects of copyright law.
What is your opinion and what can I do to fight this claim?
Darren Lock
I believe your defence comes under S. 30 of the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988 which provides as follows:
30 Criticism, review and news reporting.
(1)Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement [F1 and provided that the work has been made available to the public].
[F2(1A)For the purposes of subsection (1) a work has been made available to the public if it has been made available by any means, including—
(a)the issue of copies to the public;
(b)making the work available by means of an electronic retrieval system;
(c)the rental or lending of copies of the work to the public;
(d)the performance, exhibition, playing or showing of the work in public;
(e)the communication to the public of the work,
but in determining generally for the purposes of that subsection whether a work has been made available to the public no account shall be taken of any unauthorised act.]
(2)Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
(3)No acknowledgement is required in connection with the reporting of current events by means of a sound recording, film [F3 or broadcast where this would be impossible for reasons of practicality or otherwise].
If you fall within the above exception, you should simply refer the person accusing you of infringement to the above legislation.
I cannot comment on US law as I am a UK lawyer.
Hope this helps
UKSolicitorJA and 2 other Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 2 years ago.

So as long as the item was released to the public (and I can prove that I bought it legitimately even though 9 years ago it was withdrawn due to copyright infringement) I can claim fair use?

I bought this item less than a year ago from a reputable stockist and can prove it with receipts.

Is that right?

Many thanks,


Yes, that is correct.
All the best