It's (potentially) the whole content, but a case that was literally just uploading an entire video as-is with a different title was ruled fair use not too long ago, so this isn't itself damning.
I'd like to see a cite for that. Generally, uploading whole content owned by someone else is not fair use absent something like the content being newsworthy in itself (such as video of a police beating). Otherwise, fair use would generally require some transformative effort.
Likewise, since they are unit testing rather than viewing the content, I doubt there is any commercial harm and the market overlap between video viewers and unit testers is zero.
Copyright violations don't require the copyright holder to prove commercial harm. That's the entire point of statutory damages.
Here's the Carl Benjamin case covered in bloomberg (you can look up the specific case if you'd like) https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/youtuber-wins-attorneys...
> Copyright violations don't require the copyright holder to prove commercial harm. That's the entire point of statutory damages.
This is explicitly one of the four points of fair use as stated by the US government, so it's very important.
I don't know where tranformation would land as they are just streaming data and not actually viewing it.
It's (potentially) the whole content, but a case that was literally just uploading an entire video as-is with a different title was ruled fair use not too long ago, so this isn't itself damning.
The nature of the work seems irrelevant here as it's not viewed. It could easily be replaced with any other video -- even one owned by the repo creators.
Likewise, since they are unit testing rather than viewing the content, I doubt there is any commercial harm and the market overlap between video viewers and unit testers is zero.