I’ve been asked to share my thoughts on paranormal reaction videos. This isn’t about calling anyone out, debating skepticism, or taking sides on paranormal claims. It’s about creator rights, based on my general observations and decades of experience protecting my own intellectual property.
For those who don’t know, I recently started a paranormal-travel vlog on YouTube. I combined my love of all things paranormal with my passion for travel, and there you have it! Bryan’s Paranormal Travels
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This is an opinion article and NOT legal advice. While efforts were made to ensure accuracy, no guarantee is given. This content may not be cited as legal guidance. Laws vary by jurisdiction and must be verified independently. Readers are responsible for their actions and for checking applicable laws. By continuing, you agree to these terms. Always consult a qualified attorney. If something is factually incorrect, I’ll correct it if it is supported by legal citations.
The Main Issue
The main issue I have with many paranormal reaction creators is their use of others’ work without permission. As an author, I’ve had my share of criticism, and that’s fair. But IP misuse is another matter.
First, Fair Use
First, fair use. It’s not pre-approved. It’s a LEGAL DEFENSE in U.S. courts that may allow limited use of copyrighted material if a judge agrees. “Everyone does it” isn’t a defense (remember Napster), and simply pausing to add commentary, or flipping/cropping, doesn’t automatically make a work transformative or educational. (See: U.S. Copyright Office / Fair Use.)
Defamation Risks
What sets many paranormal reaction creators apart is that they often call paranormal content creators fakers, liars, or scammers. Any kind of public accusation is legally risky, but these specific terms are recognized in defamation law as carrying especially high risk because of their potential for serious reputational harm.
Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court in 497 U.S. 1, have ruled that publicly calling someone a liar or similar merely for disbelieving them, even just as an opinion, can be actionable as defamation.
There is no ‘public duty’ exception for private individuals who make public accusations. On the contrary, projecting false authority through a self-appointed role that has no official capacity could affect liability. Unlike hearsay cases, reaction videos provide replayable evidence. And, labels like parody don’t provide immunity either, especially when statements imply fact.
Likeness and Privacy Risks
One of the most underestimated legal risks is using someone’s likeness: name, image, voice, or other personal information in reaction videos (or any video) without consent, even thumbnails. In the U.S., likeness is protected under privacy and publicity laws, which fair use doesn’t cover. Publicly accessible online does NOT mean it’s free to use or in the public domain. That’s why smart creators use licensed content or obtain signed releases. Even famous people are not fair game. Some of the largest statutory damage awards have gone to them. Did you know likeness can even be implied? In White v. Samsung, White won $400k+ because a robot evoked her identity. In Waits v. Frito‑Lay, Waits won $2.5M for its use of a sound‑alike voice. (Legal media of people is typically licensed from Getty, other agencies, or directly from the individuals.)
U.S. fair use offers no protection for defamation, privacy, publicity, harassment, or other non-copyright claims. This is why IP holders often bring multiple claims in a lawsuit.
UK and EU Notes
Note: In the UK or EU, likeness is protected under privacy and data protection laws, especially if the use is misleading, harmful, or commercial. The EU goes even further. Always verify your local laws.
Privacy complaints are often filed with platforms first, and lawsuits can follow.
Why This Matters
This all matters because original creators invest significant time, energy, and resources into their work. When that work is misused, it can harm reputation, damage partnerships, impact sponsorships, and even affect employment opportunities. Creators are not just making videos. They’re building brands. Unauthorized use can devalue or interfere with licensing opportunities. I experienced this when one of my IPs was blocked due to unauthorized use.
The thing is, criticism does not require unauthorized use. Thousands legally post critical reviews daily.
If You Believe Your Rights Were Violated
Not all reaction videos are malicious, but if you genuinely believe your rights were violated or no copyright exception applies, and you want it removed, consider:
• It’s a legal process, so avoid responding with anger, insults, threats, or any kind of public retaliation.
• Send a polite takedown request to the reactor. Refusing to remove infringing content after being clearly notified may contribute to a finding of willful infringement, which can increase potential statutory damages.
• Document everything: videos, URLs, thumbnails, and any use of terms like “faker,” “liar,” or “scammer.” Save follow-ups, as they might show willful intent.
• Screenshot comments: They could end up as valuable evidence of reputational and market harm.
• Report infringement to platforms for removal. Under Safe Harbor provisions, platforms must remove infringing content after receiving a valid takedown notice to maintain their immunity. Safe Harbor protection applies ONLY to the platform, NOT to the person who uploaded the content. If you receive an automated fair use reply from YouTube, you may need to email the full explanation to: Copyright@youtube.com
But before you do that, know your rights. The more detailed and informed your request is, the more likely it will be honored.
Fair Use: The 4 Key Factors
FAIR USE is evaluated in court using 4 KEY FACTORS. A best practice approach in removal requests to platforms is to explain how these factors apply to the case. Here are examples of how they may affect para-content:
1 Purpose and Character of the Use:
Many para-reaction creators focus on discrediting, but in a legal context, discrediting is not the same as criticizing. Calling someone or implying that they are a liar, faker, or scammer goes beyond mere commentary on copyrighted work and becomes a personal attack on the creator’s credibility and identity. Such attacks on the creator, directly or indirectly, are generally not protected by fair use and may undermine or nullify a fair use defense. Thumbnails stamped with “Fake,” etc., tend to give away intent.
2 Nature of the Original Work:
Videos capturing alleged paranormal events often involve rare, spontaneous moments in distinctive settings, recorded in creative and original ways. This type of content may be less likely to qualify for fair use, especially when key moments, the heart of the work, are reused.
3 Amount and Substantiality Used:
Para-reaction videos often take the key scenes involving alleged paranormal activity. Even the briefest use of these key moments weighs against a fair use defense, as they represent the heart of the video and are highly protected under copyright law. In the landmark fair use case Harper & Row v. Nation Ent., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that copying even a small portion can be infringing if it includes the most valuable parts, the heart of the work. That established an important legal standard for fair use. Alleged paranormal activity often forms the heart of videos involving paranormal content because it is the “holy grail” of this type of content. Reaction creators have no legal authority to decide what the heart of someone else’s work is. And platforms can’t know the heart UNLESS informed by the original creator.
4 Effect on the Market:
Use that harms viewership, damages reputation, or poisons audience perception is market harm. Viewer comments and sudden spikes in dislikes can be key evidence.
Jurisdiction Matters
IMPORTANT: Fair use is a legal defense ONLY under U.S. law in U.S. jurisdiction. It’s best practice to state locations in removal requests to platforms, whether the original content was uploaded outside the U.S. or if the reactor is based outside the U.S. Platforms consider jurisdiction when clearly stated. Otherwise, they often default to U.S. law. They can verify locations. If legal action is pursued in the reaction creator’s country, for example, in the UK, stricter copyright laws apply. The fair dealing provision under UK copyright law offers far less protection. To date, I have not found any UK court that has upheld fair dealing as a defense for reaction-style use. In Tixdaq Ltd v. BT, the High Court rejected a fair dealing claim for just eight seconds of footage, showing how narrow the UK standard is. In the UK, fair dealing is intended to cover critique of the work, not attacks on its creator. Across Europe, the InfoSoc Directive imposes strict limits, and so on. YouTube is a global platform, so rights holders with standing may file suit in the infringer’s country if they choose.
Reporting Effectively
Just because content isn’t removed doesn’t mean it’s legal. Platforms are not courts. But it’s important to understand that platforms rely on rights holders for what happened, so be confident, clear, and factual in your reporting. It’s not enough to click the report button and type, “copyright infringement.” Explain: How was the work used? Why is it not fair use? Does it contain the heart? What’s the context? What’s the jurisdiction? The more specific, the better. Also, I’d be cautious about taking legal advice from anyone whose own unauthorized use of other people’s content might be in dispute.
Final Thoughts
I know how upsetting it is to see your content or likeness misused. But you are not legally powerless. From what I’ve seen, many disputes fail because the original creator didn’t understand the laws involved, or how to report infringement or privacy issues properly, and/or how to respond effectively to rebuttals. As someone who instructs up-and-coming authors, I always stress the importance of learning your rights. And consider getting legal insurance because IP protection never stops.
Please don’t just take my word for any of this. Consult a qualified attorney. Statutes of limitations for copyright are usually up to 3 years, in some cases, even up to 6 in the U.K. Defamation is usually less. Always check.
~Bryan