So, I think technically its fair use but I could see her using the money to cover her ass if, say, she ever wanted to sell DVDs of it. Or otherwise directly monetize it.

And even then, she's probably safe anyway. Commercializing something does not necessarily exclude fair use, funny as it is. One could certainly consider this video as "criticism, comment" (and possibly even some form of "education") whether it's on Youtube or sold on DVD. Insofar, as long as she properly quotes sources and doesn't lend to confusion of authorship, that's no issue (all TV stations and newspapers would be bankrupt if you weren't allowed to cite/quote -- and they do make money.).

The only real dangers I see are the "substantiality" and "market effect" clauses (you're for example not allowed to make a video that starts with you saying "I really like this movie..." followed by 2 hours of "The Matrix"), but since she shows a multitude of small clips mostly in the background, I guess she's relatively safe on "substantiality".

As for "market effect", as long as the overall message isn't "Super Mario sux ass" or "Let's all boycot sexist Nintendo", I guess the market effect clause is neglegible. If anything, one could argue, it directs attention to the product, as in "All press is good, there exists no negative press except no press at all".

So, I think technically its fair use but I could see her using the money to cover her ass if, say, she ever wanted to sell DVDs of it. Or otherwise directly monetize it.

And even then, she's probably safe anyway. Commercializing something does not necessarily exclude fair use, funny as it is. One could certainly consider this video as "criticism, comment" (and possibly even some form of "education") whether it's on Youtube or sold on DVD. Insofar, as long as she properly quotes sources and doesn't lend to confusion of authorship, that's no issue (all TV stations and newspapers would be bankrupt if you weren't allowed to cite/quote).

The only real dangers I see are the "substantiality" and "market effect" clauses (you're for example not allowed to make a video that starts with you saying "I really like this movie..." followed by 2 hours of "The Matrix"), but since she shows a multitude of small clips mostly in the background, I guess she's relatively safe on "substantiality".

As for "market effect", as long as the overall message isn't "Super Mario sux ass" or "Let's all boycot sexist Nintendo", I guess the market effect clause is neglegible. If anything, one could argue, it directs attention to the product, as in "All press is good, there exists no negative press except no press at all".

So, I think technically its fair use but I could see her using the money to cover her ass if, say, she ever wanted to sell DVDs of it. Or otherwise directly monetize it.

And even then, she's probably safe anyway. Commercializing something does not necessarily exclude fair use, funny as it is. One could certainly consider this video as "criticism, comment" (and possibly even some form of "education") whether it's on Youtube or sold on DVD. Insofar, as long as she properly quotes sources and doesn't lend to confusion of authorship.

The only real dangers I see are the "substantiality" and "market effect" clauses (you're for example not allowed to make a video that starts with you saying "I really like this movie..." followed by 2 hours of "The Matrix"), but since she shows a multitude of small clips mostly in the background, I guess she's relatively safe on "substantiality".

As for "market effect", as long as the overall message isn't "Super Mario sux ass" or "Let's all boycot sexist Nintendo", I guess the market effect clause is neglegible. If anything, one could argue, it directs attention to the product, as in "All press is good, there exists no negative press except no press at all".