Slashdot Mirror
Wal-Mart Parody Site Censored by DMCA
davidwr writes "Wal-Mart used the Digital Millenium Copyright Act to temporarily shut down a university student's parody of the Wal-Mart Foundation." The story's details are also available via BusinessWeek. From the article: "Papasian launched the Web site April 16 for an art class at Carnegie Mellon University called 'Parasitic Media.' The class teaches students about the political uses of satire in the media. He acknowledged using Wal-Mart's graphics on his Web site but said he believed he could use the images as part of a parody."
"Even when making a parody of a song, you must pay royalties on the original and you must obtain permission should you use any portion of the original mechanical."
No. I refer you to the US copyright act section: 107 Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use, which states:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted
work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or
by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
While it does not explicitly mention parody, that is covered under criticism, comment, or news reporting. This is why John Stewart can show clips of copyrighted works on the Daily Show and not infringe.
The graphics are, granted, the hardest part to prove 'fair use' for, but there is still a fair use case to be made. That's not just my opinion, but also the opinion of the lawyers I have been in contact with.
The graphics are not being distributed by themselves as such, rather, they are part of the website which is a larger work, and in my view, markedly different from the original. That makes it a derivative work, and as such, protected as 'fair use'.
There is a lot of mistaken applications of other types of copyright law here. The big difference is I stand to make no financial gain, directly or indirectly, from this site. I don't owe royalties because I don't have profit. I don't need permission because it's fair use.
-bugg
Fair use in parody only applies if you're not using their exact graphics/trademarks.
Bullshit. Try reading section 107 of the copyright act.
If you are you're violating their copyrights
Again, pure bullshit. Use of a work for parody is *NOT* a copyright violation.
possibly open for libel/fraud depending on what you're attributing to the company
It's not fraud unless you claim that you are the entity in question, and it's only libel if the claims are false, and only in some situations (libel is more difficult to prove against public entities.)
Standard copyright/trademark law would apply.
Yes, and because it's parody, it has an exception under Section 107 - so he's protected.
I am a lawyer - althought Copyright is not my area of expertise... anyway - the standard for parody is something like - is a a reasonable person likley to confuse the parody work as the work of the original. It sounds like no reasonable person would confuse this guys work as an actual wal-mart site.. But as noted above those kinds of arguments can be expensive to prove and that protection really does only apply to those who can afford to at least get the issue in fromt of a judge and ask for dismissal or summary judgment. Waht would that cost in a case like this - figure with discovery and drafting and filing fees - maybe as much as 10,000 and up. Easy to see why this college student just folded.