While Viacom could certainly claim fair use based on their commentary, other things have to be considered too, such as whether they were using it commercially (they were), whether their use could have impeded on the copyright holder’s ability to market the video on their own (there could possibly be a case made for that), and a slew of other factors.

At the same time, while it would have been smart to have commentary added to the VH1 clip as well, unless I misunderstood something, his video was actually just a clip; much of whose content was his own… whether just the added audio from a small portion of a program, not used commercially, and in a way not likely to stop them from effectively marketing the full video would constitute a lack of fair use is a more complex issue.

If it does end up in court, at least it will make for an interesting read later, no matter how it turned out.

I still am confused about the rights - it was his property and vh1 should have not used it altered it [ added to it] without his permission. Everyone cries foul when the little guy uses the big companies content [ clips of whole content] but the big guy can get away with it???

[…] A brief time out from our discussion of blogging for pay:  This news item caught my eye because 1) it is bizarre (as in, makes me scratch my head and go “Huh?”), and 2) it originates in North Carolina, where I currently reside.  The gist: A man named Chris Knight is accused by Viacom International of copyright infringement for posting a YouTube video that Viacom made by infringing upon his very own copyright.  Webpronews has the scoop. […]