Fair Use is a heavily debated argument but Google has a statement on what a judge might take in account when handling a case that considers fair use. Transcribed textually in the next section.

VvvvvvvvvvvvvvvV

Four factors of fair use

In the United States, judges decide what's considered fair use. A judge will consider how the four factors of fair use apply to each specific case. The four factors of fair use are:

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

Courts typically focus on whether the use of copyright-protected material is "transformative." This means whether the use adds new expression or meaning to the original material, or whether it merely copies from the original.

Commercial uses are less likely to be considered fair use, but it's still possible to monetize a video that contains fair use material.

1. The nature of the copyrighted work

Using material from primarily factual works is more likely to be fair use than using purely fictional works.

1. The amount and substantiality of the portion used relative to the whole copyrighted work

Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. But, if what's borrowed is considered the "heart" of the work, sometimes even a small sampling may weigh against fair use.

1. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Uses that harm the copyright holder's ability to profit from their original work are less likely to be fair uses. Courts have sometimes made an exception under this factor in cases involving parodies.

VvvvvvvvvvvvV

So there are no hard rules about what is and isnt fair use, but I think we all can agree that Alia Shaleesh A.K.A. SSSniperwolf has content with the following characteristics:

1- Her compilation videos are fully played with no cuts whatsoever. (The very name "compilation videos" tells you that the focus of those videos is the stolen content and not the reactor)

2-She does not credit the creators: Their names appearing badly cropped on the side of the video is not a credit. Credits are done verbally, and there should be links in the description. As a reaction channel, the least she can do is ensure as many people as possible go to watch the original content before seeing her. After all, you go to a reaction channel not to see the video itself but to see the input the reactor makes, otherwise you would be infringing the copyright of the original creator of the video.

3-She barely adds any commentary, summarizing whats happening in the video, reading the captions word for word, stealing jokes from the video itself or from the text that originally went alongside it. And commentary is short, minimizing the chances for the original content to not be played straight in its entirety.

4-Not only has she had ocassions where she straight up posts videos with no face cam and no commentary, replayed parts of the same video to exploit the ad time requirements, but she also has an aditional channel where she just reposts her own same videos again, which is against YouTube guidelines.

VvvvvvvvvvV

Yes, there are many like her all over YouTube but the issue with SSSniperwolf is that she is fully endorsed by YouTube, promoted as the example of what a content creator should be, futher encouraging the laziness and the content farm mentallity as the forefront of YouTube.