You think this guy had Marvel's (Disney's) Permission?
I doubt it.
Further reading:
"Embedded YouTube Videos
The issue of copyright infringement becomes murkier when I include an embedded youTube video link, for example in a HubPages video capsule. Now, the youTube video appears on my online article, blog, or website, in contrast to the previous case, where it only appears as a link.
Am I infringing copyright laws now?
Some people argue that it is not infringing upon any copyright laws because you are only including a link - an embedded link - but still just a link. If anybody is libel, they reason, it should be youTube who is hosting the content, or the person who uploaded the content onto youTube. Since you did not do either of those things, you clearly are not doing anything wrong.
This reasoning, however, is problematic. It is problematic because now the embedded video is appearing right on your online article or website. This is similar to embedding a picture or image that belongs to someone else.
In the case of a picture or image, you must first get permission from the owner of the image, unless the image is public domain. You should also attribute all images back to their original site (i.e. site you got the image from) and content creator/owner.
Having an embedded youTube video on your online article or website is exactly like having an embedded image - thus permission must also be given from the owner of the youTube video."
https://turbofuture.com/internet/Embed-YouTube-Videos---Copyright-Infringement
Why aren't you reading the YouTube terms and conditions? That is the governing document. It is what the rights holder has agreed to as well as the end user. You are scrambling all over trying to play armchair lawyer but aren't bothering to read the most important document.
Or don't bother because if you look at what is actually published to the blockchain you'll see it's just a bare URL. I'm not even posting embed code that is done by Steemit Inc. They turn YouTube URLs into YouTube embeds on the presentation layer. It's fully in accordance with YouTube's terms.
You can feel free to call them shitposts that's your opinion. I would vehemently disagree with your opinion. To call them plagiarism is just factually wrong.
"Hai Guys, does the Remington Firearms Terms and Conditions say who I can legally shoot with my new gun?"
LOL, you are revealing yourself to be the armchair lawyer.
T&C have no force of law. To even reference them demonstrates you are clueless on US copyright law.
"You can feel free to call them shitposts that's your opinion. I would vehemently disagree with your opinion."
They are the definition of shit posts and you fucking know it, you disingenuous hack. That's an objective fact, not an opinion.
They are literally 0 effort. Dictionary definition of a shitpost.
Myself and others have already pointed out your erroneous application of the law. Your snide rejection of the facts won't change them any.
You have also failed to understand what was actually published and what is being facilitated by Steemit Inc and YouTube.
It's obvious you are out of your depth on any sort of legal or technical argument it's probably best for you to just stick to your subjective opinion of it being a shitpost and the amount of effort involved.
So how much effort exactly should one put in to receive how much back? Is it hourly? Can some people put in more effort in less time? Do you think Steem should only reward users who spend hours on long form content?
"So how much effort exactly should one put in to receive how much back? Is it hourly? Can some people put in more effort in less time? Do you think Steem should only reward users who spend hours on long form content?"
Reductio ad absurdum.
You know what you are doing, but the fact that you can defend it tells me all I need to know about the cynical abuser you are.
So your legal argument fell and now you can't even defend your effort argument. You really are quite pathetic.