Usually the amount taken of a work is evaluated for a fair use defense, as is its inclusion in a broader work (article, in this case). Taking a small excerpt of a movie for purposes of parody is different from publishing a photo wholesale.
I agree, but again using Cracked as an example, they have many times linked to a 30+ minute video to make a one-sentence joke. That's far beyond fair use as far as the law is written. They also obviously do not get prior permission from the publisher; a typical older article from Cracked will have embedded videos that show "this was removed for copyright violation" placeholders.
You don't need prior permission if it's fair use, and it can still be fair use even if the video is removed (the DMCA ensures it has to be taken down regardless, at least until the uploader sends a counter-notice, and YT goes even beyond that).
Still, the 30m for a single joke might be infringing, yes, but so what? If it would be infringement if they served the video from their own servers, why shouldn't it be by embedding from YT?
I never said the law used the word "take". So what. I was obviously referring to the fact that no copy is being made, and thus copyright doesn't apply and "fair use" is irrelevant. A link isn't anything like using a small portion of a work for e.g. review and critique.
