Many creators believe attribution fixes the problem. It does not. Giving credit may be polite, but copyright infringement is about unauthorized copying, distribution, or public display. Fair use is an exception, not a reward for credit.
Courts look at the four factors, not your description in the about section. A takedown can still happen even if you linked the source.
Credit can show good faith in context, which some factors consider indirectly. It can also help viewers find context. None of this creates rights to the work.
Do not rely on 'fair use claim' text in captions. That statement carries no legal weight. Focus on your edits instead.
Attribution is ethics; fair use is a legal exception.
Avoid phrases that imply permission exists. Saying 'used with permission' when false is risky. Saying 'all rights belong to the owner' while still infringing is also misleading.
Focus on what you can prove: the new purpose, the cuts, and why each clip was needed. Those are concrete actions, not labels.
Fair use can cover sharp commentary and pointed criticism, but only when new ideas outweigh the copied material taken from a published source.
Fair use is not a guess, but a balancing test based on four factors that ask how you used the work, what it was, how much, and market impact.
Fair use for reaction videos depends on how much you react, not how loud you react, with proof of new commentary tied to specific clips shown.
Analyze a channel, extract its structural DNA, and generate scripts engineered from patterns that actually work.
Analyze a Channel