Can I post clips of another channel? What Brazilian law and the platforms say
Under Brazil's copyright law, using part of someone else's video requires prior, express permission, and the exceptions are narrow. The criminal code treats copyright infringement as a crime. In practice, the risk that shows up first is the platform: strikes, claims and demonetization. A map of what is safe, what is defensible and what is just a matter of time.
Can I post clips of another channel? What Brazilian law and the platforms say
Without permission, as a rule, no. Article 29 of Brazil's Law 9.610 says that reproducing a work "partially or in full" depends on "prior and express authorization from the author", and article 184 of Brazil's Criminal Code treats copyright infringement as a crime. Exceptions exist, but they are narrow, and the risk that arrives first is almost never a lawsuit: it is the strike, the claim and the account that loses monetization.
This post focuses on Brazil because that is where most of our clippers work and where the law is less known in English. If you clip in the US, fair use applies instead; in Spain, Mexico or anywhere else, your country's copyright law does. The platform rules below apply everywhere.
What does Brazilian law say?
Three articles settle 90% of the question.
Article 29. Partial or full reproduction, editing, adaptation and "any other transformations" require prior, express authorization. A clip is partial reproduction. Reframing and captioning are editing. It is all in the article.
Article 46. The list of what does not infringe copyright. For clippers, two items matter:
- item III: quoting, in any medium, "passages of any work, for purposes of study, criticism or debate, to the extent justified by the purpose, naming the author and the origin of the work";
- item VIII: reproducing "small excerpts" in a new work, "provided that the reproduction itself is not the main purpose of the new work and does not harm the normal exploitation of the reproduced work".
Article 47. Paraphrase and parody are free, as long as they are not "true reproductions of the original work" and do not discredit it.
Notice what the exceptions ask for: a purpose (study, criticism, debate), a measure (only what is needed) and a new work where the excerpt is not the main course. A 60-second clip of a podcast's best moment, with nothing of yours added, is the exact opposite: the excerpt is the main purpose.
Does Brazil have fair use?
Not in the American sense. US fair use is an open doctrine, decided case by case on four factors. Brazilian law has a list of exceptions in article 46, and whatever is not on it needs permission.
The Brazilian Senate's copyright guide kills the most common myth in one line: "no length makes use without authorization acceptable; it is false that short excerpts are automatically allowed".
So no, there is no 30-second rule, no 10% rule and no "it's fine with credit". Credit is an obligation inside the exception, not an exception on its own.
Is it a crime?
Article 184 of the Criminal Code sets three months to one year of detention, or a fine, for infringing copyright and related rights. When the infringement is full or partial reproduction "with a direct or indirect profit motive" without permission, the penalty rises to two to four years plus a fine. A monetized clip channel has a profit motive, direct or indirect.
Being honest about the practical risk: I found no public data on criminal cases against clippers. What actually happens every day happens on the platforms. But "nobody sues" is not the same as "it is allowed", and a large channel living off someone else's content is exactly the target a rights holder picks when they decide to go after someone.
Then there is image. Article 20 of Brazil's Civil Code lets a person forbid the use of their image when it harms their honor, reputation or respectability, "or if it is intended for commercial purposes", without prejudice to damages. A clip that mocks someone on a monetized channel stacks both problems.
What the platforms do
This is where things actually happen, and each platform has two layers: copyright (the owner requests removal) and originality (the platform decides not to pay or not to distribute).
YouTube, copyright. Three copyright strikes within 90 days make a channel subject to termination. A strike expires after 90 days if you complete Copyright School; without it, the strike stays (YouTube Help). A Content ID claim is different: it usually does not lead to a strike, but it can send revenue to the rights holder or block the video.
YouTube, originality. The reused content policy removes from monetization "clips of moments from your favorite show edited together with little or no narrative" and content downloaded from another source "without any substantive modifications". It accepts critical reviews, reactions with commentary and edits that add a storyline and commentary (YouTube policy).
Facebook and Instagram. Meta announced in March that it deprioritizes unoriginal content, including reposts, "stitching multiple clips together" and low-value edits like "adding borders, inserting captions, or changing reel speed". The penalty is lower reach, the account dropped from recommendations and demonetization. We covered the Instagram side in Instagram buries watermarked reposts.
X. The new creator payout program, which opened on September 8, excludes reposts and derivative video, and says plainly that a caption or text overlay on someone else's video that "simply describes what is happening" does not count (The Next Web).
All three read the same way: captions do not transform. Captions, borders and reframing are finishing. Transformation is commentary, context, analysis or a story that was not in the original.
The four risk levels
This is how I rate any third-party clip.
Level 1: permission in writing. The creator runs a clipper program, the footage comes from a clipping championship with published rules, or you have permission by message or contract. The legal side is settled. The platform side still needs care with originality if you want the platform itself to pay you.
Level 2: publicly released. The creator says in a video, description or bio that clips are allowed. It is permission, but fragile: they can change their mind, and you need to prove what they said. Keep a dated screenshot.
Level 3: commentary or criticism with an excerpt. You use part of the video to comment, analyze or disagree, with credit, and your content is the main course. That sits close to article 46, item III, and to the platform exceptions. Defensible, not immune: automated claims still show up.
Level 4: reposting the best moment with nothing of yours. Without permission, this is the textbook article 29 case. It can live for months with no trouble and fall in a day, taking the channel with it. It is not "if", it is "when".
Most clip channels I see starting out are at level 4 believing they are at level 3.
So how do you work with other people's footage?
With permission. That is how the market that pays actually works.
A streamer with a clipper army is granting permission, and sometimes paying. A clipping championship is, above all, collective permission with rules: the content owner releases the footage, sets the terms and pays for results. The market of streamers paying clippers only exists because the relationship is consensual.
My view: a clip channel without permission is an asset that is not yours. You are building an audience on a permission nobody gave, and the owner can take it back any day. The same hours spent on a creator who grants permission, or on a championship with released footage, build something nobody can take away.
Music is a separate and more aggressive layer, covered in music in clips and copyright. And if the footage comes from TV, the broadcaster holds its own rights over the transmission under article 95 of the same Brazilian law.
The checklist before posting another channel's clip
- Do I have written permission, championship rules, or a public release with a screenshot?
- If not, is my content the main course and the excerpt just the quote?
- Is there third-party music in the excerpt?
- Does the clip expose someone in a way that harms their honor or reputation?
- Am I adding something beyond captions, borders and reframing?
If the answer to the first is no and the second is no too, do not post. If you make a living from this, talk to an intellectual property lawyer; this is a market read, not a legal opinion.
Where Cut.Pro fits
A tool cannot sort out permission for you, and none can. What it does is lower the cost of doing it right: paste the link to a video you have the right to clip, get the segments with the transcript, reframing and captions, and spend your time on what transforms the clip (context, title, commentary) instead of scrubbing a timeline. At Cut.Pro, championships follow that logic: the creator opens one, releases their own footage and sets the rules.
Sources: Brazil Law 9.610/98 · Brazil Criminal Code, article 184 · Brazil Civil Code, article 20 · Brazilian Senate, copyright guide · YouTube Help, copyright strikes · YouTube, monetization and reused content policy · Meta, rewarding original creators on Facebook · The Next Web, X Original Content Rewards
