So, I've been interested of making some TOP 5 -list in youtube for a while, but one thing is holding me back. Is it legal to use copyrighted material in those videos? Like 20-25 second clips of them?

For instance, if I make a TOP 5 Most memorable video game music for me -list, can I use the actual music in that list? I know it may sound like a stupid question, but today's world is so complex when it comes to what is legal and what is not...

Help?

There's gazillions of videos like that on Youtube, so I don't think you have a problem with it.

Normally it should fall unto "fair use", however I don't know what is the maximum length tolerated.

But don't forget that Youtube has some overzealous automatic copyrighted material detector that can sometime ban a whole video for just using some seconds of copyrighted music. (but if it's video game music you should be safe)

Is it legal? Depends on the country you reside in, the country the copyright holder resides in and the countries you make your content available in. In general, it's pretty safe to say that the answer is a big fat no. Will you get sued for it? Unlikely.

Fair use, or equivalent, exists in most countries, or at least in most countries who actually care about copyrights in the first place.

So basically let's plays, reviews, trailers and stuff like that is illegal, then. Wonderful.

Not necessarily. Not a word of that rules out fair use.

That's my take. But there's so much there, and I think it comes down to whether or not the legal owners want to do anything about it, not Youtube itself.

edit:

"In August 2008 US District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose, California ruled that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material.

The case involved Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania, who made a home video of her thirteen-month-old son dancing to Prince's song Let's Go Crazy and posted the video on YouTube. Four months later, Universal Music, the owner of the copyright to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video enforcing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Lenz notified YouTube immediately that her video was within the scope of fair use, and demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after six weeks, not two weeks as required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for her legal costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair-use of the song. For more information, see Lenz v. Universal Music Corp."

Ok, I'm not an expert on fair use, but from what I've been reading, that may be the "loophole."

I am sure that a Top 5 list would fall under fair use, considering that the Nostalgia Critic and AVGN still exist. As said by others however, the automated regulation by Youtube might not tolerate your videos, so you may consider alternatives like Blip.TV and RetrowareTV.

Length has little to do with it. Fair use will generally depend on the use, not the length. It's hardly unheard of for somebody to be sued over even short clips. The Beastie Boys were sued by a jazz performer for using 4 notes in a composition even after they'd cleared the composition. They were completely right, but fair use wasn't why they were in the clear, they were in the clear because they had licensed it.

In fact, "fair use" or its equivalent exists in very few countries.

Tosh.0 does it. I don't know if they secure permission, but as long as you're adding commentary sufficient to make it a criticism you are probably in the clear. Fair Use is an affirmative defense, you usually want to work out the whole "you did! no I didn't!" thing outside of court. Some copyright holders will be complete asses regardless.
In the US, Fair Use is a concept to be used in court, it's an affirmative defense which puts the burden on the defendant to prove that their usage fell under fair use. It is most definitely NOT enshrined in law in the way in which most people think it is. It is definitely a "thing", it's just a different thing than most people think.

Greyzone, really. If you try to make money from them, then that is illegal, but most of it would fall under fair use.

That's a misconception, it will depend where you are, but making profit doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't fair use. It will however likely make it harder to prove fair use and restrict things a bit, but making a profit off it doesn't automatically rule out fair use.

Imagine doing a literature review magazine without being able to use short passages to illustrate the points you're trying to make about the work. Without a fair use exemption it would be hard or impossible to discuss anything that isn't public domain.