Some people think that if they don't make any money redistributing/copying another's work that that is OK. Wrong. Whether the copyright violator receives any profit is irrelevant. The driving factor is that the copyright owner owns the work and enjoys the right to control how/when their work is distributed and to be compensated anytime their work is distributed.
While you provide a very good overview, the above statement is not entirely true. Whether the copyright violator receives any profit is in fact very relevant in the analysis of whether the use constitutes a 'fair use'. Section 107 of the Copyright Act enumerates four factors to be weighed in making that determination. They are:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
2. The nature of the copyrighted work
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
So, I'm not saying the original poster's use of the copyrighted work would fall within the Fair Use exception or not. Even if he's not charging for access to his video because it's freely available on the internet, his use still may be deemed commercial in nature if he received compensation for producing it.
I am aware of the elements that are taken in to consideration in a Fair Use determination. The point I was making and probably didn't express clearly was that profit - or the lack thereof - does not establish a prima fascia defense of Fair Use. It is only one element in that determination. And that is where so many people go so wrong. The prevailing attitude seems to be, "I'm not making any money by copying and distributing this, therefore it is OK." However the conclusion drawn does not automatically follow from the proposition offered.
In fact, there are many, many instances of huge copyright fines and penalties being levied when the profit garnered from the violation was in all respects - legally and technically - zero. Churches, which by definition do not make any profits because they are non-profit organizations, are among the worst offenders and also among the favorite targets of copyright police.
A favorite practice in churches now is to display the lyrics of songs on projector screens for the congregation to see. That practice is not legal without permission by the copyright owner of those lyrics. Sometimes those lyrics are overlaid on moving videos - which requires a completely different license. As a former church choir director, I frequently entered church music libraries to find literally hundreds, if not thousands of photocopied music pieces - all created on the mistaken notion that because a church is non-profit it can copy at will.
Church Copyright Licensing International (CCLI) is a company that was founded in 1988 to provide licensing and copyrights management services specifically to churches because the rate of copyright violations within the church community was rampant. And most violations were committed on the simple mistaken belief that because the church was not making money or charging for its services, it was OK.
As an IT consultant, I've also worked with churches where every piece of software in the church office was a pirated copy provided by some well-meaning church member who brought their own media in from home and provided it to the secretary. Each of those violations is potentially a $100,000 fine per pop. In fact the software piracy police have always made churches one of their favorite targets because the incidences of piracy are so high. And again, a church is by law and in-fact a non-profit organization therefore no profit can be legally ascribed to the use of these materials.
If I were to make a video of my grandson's birthday party, overlay a copyright song on it, and post it on YouTube, that clearly wouldn't come under any of the Fair Use provisions for scholarly research, news reporting, public commentary, etc. But if I were to be sued by the copyright owner, a court might conclude that while the use was technically not permitted, the fact that there was no profit and distribution had zero impact on the market value of the work in question, that I was OK.
However, if United Way - a legally not-for-profit organization - were to use that same song to back a commercial in their national advertising campaign and broadcast that commercial on national TV, distribute it via their web site, run it on YouTube, etc, and didn't first get the required licenses and permissions, I would imagine they would end up writing a fairly large check to the copyright owner at the end of the legal dispute.
And as an advanced amateur photographer, I can assure you there are untold myriads of non-Fair Use copyright violations that occur everyday when someone takes a copyrighted photograph from one site and posts it on their own without permission, even though no money ever changes hands. I have one professional photographer friend who has to employ a full time assistant who does nothing but patrol the web for unlicensed uses of her images and sends out take down notices to the offenders and their respective web hosts.