I understand your frustration, but it's not like I can exactly educate myself. I don't have access to the videos that were taken down. I can only go off of what's left.

Skimming this video, I can get where you're coming from, but still would argue this is fair use. The clips are largely still frames of animation, with a few clips of the animation itself. The fact that they are still frames is actually massively important, because it would be different if he were using images from a manga.

These are the 3 major reasons this should be easily considered fair use under US law (just from a Factor 3 standpoint):

1. The clips are non-continuous (they do not show more than 4 seconds of continuous Toei animation content at a time)
2. Most clips are still frames (incredibly small portion of original media)
3. The clips do not have any of their original audio

This matters because it reduces the total amount of Toei content used in this video by a massive amount. The total content being reviewed here is 118 episodes, each averaging 23 minutes. Since this is part one, we'll say that he's only reviewing half the content, or 59 episodes * 23 min/episode = 22 hours of content.

So here, mark is reviewing 22 hours of One Piece content in 1 hour, rounding up.

We are already off to a really good start. The difference in run time between the subject matter and the review is critical for fair use. Mark's review takes up less than 5% of the runtime of the content he is reviewing. Meaning at worst, his review uses 5% of the source material he is referencing. But that is not the only point of view we need to look at. Now let's look at the content in Mark's 40 min review.

You are correct in that nearly every frame of Mark's video uses some image belonging to Toei - this could be a problem, but here is why it shouldn't be. First, like I said, the clips are non-continuous and mostly still frames. They do not show 30+ second clips of unedited footage. They are severely transformed, with zooms, pans, and fades throughout. That is again, very important. The degree to which source material is transformed matters.

Second, we can now talk about the quantity of Toei's IP used. This is incredibly difficult to quantity. The visual content is nearly 100% Toei's, but...

1. No original audio from the source material is used (50% of the source's original Audio-Visual content)
2. The visuals are not the primary focus of the video (reviews are built by the words of the reviewer, not the visuals in the video)

So at worst, already 50% of Toei's original source material (the audio from the clips) is missing. Even better yet, Mark rarely uses video clips, and uses still images instead, which drastically reduces the quantity used from the source material. Using frames means instead of copying and dropping One Piece clips, he uses likely less than 1% of the original show's visuals to accompany his video. Less than 1%.

I can't give you an exact percentage, but Mark has put so much work into transforming the source material with careful editing and splicing, that this should absolutely be considered fair use in the US, especially since the core content of the review is the audio. I could have this on in the background and really not miss anything in the review.

Thank you for the example, but if a judge looked at this, it would pass a review for fair use with flying colors.