Is it legal to clip podcasts?

Whose podcast is it? Three cases

A recorded episode is fixed, and Circular 1 from the U.S. Copyright Office lists sound recordings and audiovisual works among the kinds of work copyright protects. Circular 1 does not name podcasts. Our reading is that an audio episode is most plausibly a sound recording and a video episode an audiovisual work. The owner holds the exclusive rights to copy the work, adapt it and show it, and can authorise others to do the same. A clip is a copy of part of the episode, so the first question is who the owner is.

Circular 16A makes one more point that matters for podcasts: only the current owner of the exact material can grant permission, and material inside a larger work, such as a music bed or a played-in video, may belong to someone else. A yes from the host does not clear the song in the intro.

Fair use is decided case by case, by a court

Section 107 of the Copyright Act says fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research is not an infringement. Those are examples, and a court weighs four factors in each case. Here is how the Copyright Office describes them, with a note on what each means for a podcast clip.

• Purpose and character of the use. Courts look at whether it is commercial or nonprofit educational, and at whether it is transformative, meaning it adds something new with a further purpose. YouTube says adding new expression or meaning is more likely to be fair use than merely copying the original. A critique that needs the excerpt is nearer to what Section 107 names.
• Nature of the work. The Office says using a more creative work, such as a novel, movie or song, is less likely to support fair use than using a factual one.
• Amount used. Courts look at quantity and quality. The Office gives a case where even a small amount was not fair because it was the heart of the work.
• Effect on the market. Courts ask whether the use harms the market for the original, for example by replacing it. A clip that makes people skip the episode points the wrong way.

What you will not find is a safe number. The Office says there is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work, or a specific number of words, may be used without permission. See how long a clip can be without copyright for the long version.

Fair use also gives you no advance certainty. The Office says only a federal court can decide whether a use is fair, and that a copy shop or any third party need not accept your own view. It adds that in cases of doubt, permission should be obtained. See also the short entry on fair use.

A permission checklist for clippers

Circular 16A suggests what a request for permission should contain. Adapted for a clipper, that comes to this:

1. Find the owner. It may be the host, a production company or a network. Circular 16A warns that the owner may use an agent or licensing service, so the first person you write to may send you on.
2. Name the exact material: which episodes, and timestamps if you have them.
3. Say how you will use it: vertical clips, which platforms, and whether you will earn from them or be paid by a campaign.
4. Say who the audience is and which account will post.
5. Ask about what is inside the episode: music, sponsor reads, guest remarks, anything played in.
6. Ask for a reply you can keep, and for any credit or links the owner wants. A written answer is the only proof you will have later.
7. Ask whether the yes covers future episodes or only the ones you named.

Clipping campaigns and what they do not tell you

Some creators and brands invite clippers. Whop's docs describe a clipping campaign as creators turning existing long-form content, such as podcasts, livestreams and webinars, into short clips for TikTok, YouTube Shorts, X and Instagram Reels. For clipping campaigns the brand supplies the source footage in an "Available content" field and writes its own rules, and creators are paid on views only after the brand approves the post.

That is an invitation to clip. But Whop's Content Rewards page does not mention licensing or copyright terms between brand and clipper, such as whether you may post the clips on your own channel afterwards. Read the campaign rules and ask. More on how these work is in how clipping campaigns work.

If an owner objects

A takedown notice does not mean you are being sued, according to the Copyright Office; a lawsuit arrives as court papers. A platform that receives a valid notice removes the material and tells the uploader. You can leave it down or send a counter-notice saying it was removed by mistake, for example because you hold a licence. Anyone who knowingly misstates either side can be liable for damages. Repeated notices can end in account termination, because platforms need a repeat infringer policy.

A lawsuit is a different matter, and there the owner may seek statutory damages. Under Title 17 that is not less than $750 and not more than $30,000 per work, up to $150,000 per work for willful infringement, as the court considers just. Circular 1 says statutory damages are available when registration is made before the infringement or within three months after publication. None of that is a prediction for your clip. The Copyright Office recommends getting permission in cases of doubt.

Where KeyMo fits

KeyMo cuts an episode you have rights to into scored vertical clips. Upload an MP4 or MOV (5 minutes to 3 hours, up to 10 GB) or paste a YouTube link on a paid plan, and it returns up to 15 clips with captions, a one-line reason for each score and a chat editor for fixes. The upload flow asks you to confirm you own the video or have permission. It cannot check that for you, and it does not grant rights to anything. The workflow is in how to clip a podcast, and the tool is the podcast clip generator.