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."
If you alter the content, they have no claim against DMCA. MalWart != WalMart.
--- Nothing clever here: move along now...
Exceptions to copyright for parody, fair use, etc. only apply to those who have lawyers.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
This is getting way to much press. Lemmie put it to you this way:
Walmart Foundation: www.walmartfoundation.org
Parody Site: www.walmart-foundation.org
Walmart is NOT bitching about this.
He basically has a site where people probably stumble onto when they are trying to go to a legit site. Walmart's ONLY beef was that he was using their images.
I can't tell you how we ALL have known since the web was invented that you don't steal other peoples graphics. Sure, there may be some grey area with parodies, but its the same thing we knew when we were just getting into making HTML.
But, since this kid wants press, he starts using "CENSORED BY THE DMCA" so we'll all cry fowl.
He rolled the dice and lost... and all it was was over the stupid graphics.
I say, "its an art class, how about making PARODIES of the IMAGES too?"
No extra publicity in that, though...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
"The goal was to make the site look like it could be a real site from a company like Wal-Mart, but have text that was so ridiculous that anyone who read it would realize that it was absurd," Papasian said in a statement on his revamped Web site. "If anyone believed it to be a real Wal-Mart site, that is only a testament to the degree of absurdity that exists within corporate America today."
Due to all the retarded behavior that our fellow citizens exhibit on a daily basis I am never surprised when I see people falling for direct parody.
I am also not surprised that corporations are allowed to shutdown *what was likely fair use*. Sadly, someday, we will all look back on this and say, "look how free we once were. It survived 400 hits before it was taken down. They didn't even have to approve the webpage before it was posted."
I thought the DMCA protected protection-schemes, not copyright law.. It's not like Walmart put copy-protection on the JPEGs. I didn't think the copyright would apply anyways, wouldn't this site be allowed fair use of the images? It's not like he's trying to compete with them.
I still hate the DMCA..
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
How to shoot yourself in the foot in three easy steps.
Simon.
It looks like WalMart imports more than just cheap goods created by virtual slave labor from China.
Now they're further hurting our trade deficit by importing clamp-down tactics from the Chinese communist government!
I'm a big tall mofo.
Apparantly, its not just Soviet Russia. It happens in the USA now too. Quite sad, actually, that the cold war was fought for 50 years against a totalitairan regime, only to win, and take on some of the elements of that regime ourselves.
Reality has a liberal bias
"Literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor." ~ William Orville Douglas (1898-1980) US Supreme Court associate justice, 1935-75, professor of law at Yale
"Censorship ends in logical completeness when nobody is allowed to read any books except the books that nobody can read." ~ George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) British playwright & novelist
"The Internet treats censorship as a malfunction and routes around it." ~ John Perry Barlow (1947-) Wyoming cattle rancher, a lyricist for the Grateful Dead
"I believe in censorship. After all, I made a fortune out of it." ~ Mae West (1892-1980) American comedienne from "My Little Chickadee," 1940.
"Censorship is almost systematically the weapon of first resort for governments in uncertain political situations. So not only are the famous writers and bold journalists in danger; at every level of public and private life, the freedoms to think, read or write are denied. In the absence of a free press, other human rights abuses flourish unabated. Nothing is reported, criticized, questioned. The example of imprisonment, torture or execution imposes a further silence. A blindly obedient mob mentality is encouraged, driven by extremist religious or ethnic loyalties. The citizens do not know what is happening. Fear and ignorance permeate discussion." ~ Marian Botsford Fraser
"Censor: A self-appointed snoophound who sticks his nose in other people's business." ~ Bennett Cerf
[quotes from zaadz.com]
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
No... if you want to commercially MARKET a parody of a song, you must pay royalties and obtain permission. If you want to simply make a parody, and give it away - there's nothing to stop that (unless you find financial gain from that parody).
Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
From the article: "An interesting aspect of the cease and desist is that it was signed by a lawyer who wrote that she was acting on behalf of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. This statement unintentionally emphasizes one of the main points that my parody was trying to prove all along: The Wal-Mart "Foundation" is nothing more than a front group for Wal-Mart Stores Incorporated, and should not be confused for a real charitable non-profit."
... always makes me feel cheap and sleazy. Like it's something I shouldn't be doing. One of the many reasons I like shopping at Wal Mart.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
"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.
Wal-Mart does not care about this kind of bad PR. The people who would find this type of action detestable are not Wal-Mart's target demographic. Wal-Mart has continually eaten bags of poop in the mainstream media over their staunch opposition to unions and the way they've destroyed most mom-and-pop type stores, but this hasn't translated to lost sales for them, because the people who shop at Wal-Mart care about one thing, and one thing only: low prices. As long as this suit doesn't lead to higher prices, Wal-Mart will come out of it financially unscathed.
rooooar
Well, it's not a particularly good parody perhaps. If I were doing it, I'd subtly change the images for amusement value.
My latest favorite parody is Boring Boring, a parody of Boing Boing.
How about we just give him a C+ for his school assignment and keep the lawyers out of it?
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
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. Coolio got all upset after Weird Al released Amish Paradise. Apparently, Al thought Coolio had given permission to parody Gangsta's Paradise, but he actually hadn't. But there wasn't really anything Coolio could do legally because it's a parody. Weird Al apologized but didn't exactly take the song off the market. He generally only does parodies if he gets permission out of respect for the artists, not because he's legally obligated to.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
To be honest, it's NOT WalMart that causes this (if it even really happens). It is the customers who do it to themselves. If we are all so price-conscious (read: cheap) that we shut down all the local shops in our home town... let's just say that we reap what we sow. The tragedy of the commons and all that jazz.
Full-Featured GPL Web Hosting Control Panel
Is a rework of Stevie Wonder's Pastime Paradise. Who is taking from whom here? Of course, I'm sure Stevie was duly compensated.
Yes, people shop at Wal-Mart because of low prices but the reason they have to shop low prices is that their wages have gone down (in real terms) over the past 30 years.
As an example, my wife graduated from HS in 1974 and her first job was at paper plant. The job was union and paid $7 per hour and worked 40 hours a week. This, mind you, for a HS grad with no college and no special skills in a small city north of Seattle. By the time she left that job (in 1980) she was making over $10 per hour and getting full medical.
Then wages went into the toilet. Now kids are lucky to get a $7 job (at Wal-Mart) and work 20-hours a week.
In 1974 you could buy a house ($35,000 for a 3br/2ba home in the Seattle area) with a $7/hour job. In 2005 houses there average $250,000. Try buying one of those right out of HS.
So ya... people shop for cheap prices but only because we don't have much of a choice any more.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Dude, you need to check that. Despite your claims of your site being "so absurd that it must be a parody", the truth is that it is very easy to confuse with the original. You used a domain name that's nearly the same, you appropriated trademarks (which aren't protected), you used the exact same graphics, etc., etc., etc. A "parody" that's easy to confuse with the original is not protected!
Next time do a *good* job of it as call the site "Dull-Mart" or somesuch, and use a matching domain. Also ajust all the images so that they betray the intent of the site (i.e. a parody). Every last line should say something insightful or funny that it difficult to mix up with the original. Someone else pointed to this site as an example of how it should be done.
Good luck.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The text was flamingly obvious. I said things like (paraphrasing) "we're just undoing a very small portion of the damage we do to communities, because it promotes our image and is a great write-off."
-bugg
D-M-C-A... just watch out for the D-M-C-A
Young man, young man, are you listening to me?
Young man, young man, even this parody is illegal.
CAMPBELL v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC., ___ U.S. ___ (1994) [ Footnote 17 ]
When a huge corporation promotes itself as having a 'cleaner-than-thou' image, and then muscles down on someone who mocks this image in a tiny inperceptable forum, they often will generate a backlash in the media; the alternative media if not the major outlets.
Then the parody gets recognized far wider than it would have from its initial presentation. This brings recognition to the parodist and simulates discussion on the practices of the corporation and the contrasts between its business practices and its manufactured image. Smart business execs usually know this and will work to avoid publicity amplification. Walmart execs tend to be more mean than savvy.
Perhaps the clearest example of this publicity effect is the Disneyland Orgy which would have disappeared as an urban legend if clueless Disney execs had not have gone batshit when it appeared and mounted a huge effort to destroy it. As you can see, it lives now on the web forever. It still is pretty funny.
The US used to have this thing called "fair use" where copying that would otherwise be infringing for the purpose of parody was legal. Wonder what happened to that.
I am trolling
Another factor is the amount of the work used:
3 - The amount and importance of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
Fair use does not allow one to completely copy a Web site images and HTML, nor does non-profit or parody use completely exempt one from infringement liabilty.
Man, you open-source fanatics really think people don't have any rights in their IP. Fortunately, the US Constitution and US Copyright law disagree.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The US used to have this thing called "fair use" where copying that would otherwise be infringing for the purpose of parody was legal. Wonder what happened to that.
The MAFIAA has successfully killed most fair use through technological methods coupled with laws like the DMCA. Add in a dose of SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) and the Walmarts of the world can do whatever the hell they want to you.
Portable versions of Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice, etc
This link to Cornell University's Law School site states (from US Code):
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
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. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a 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; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
So in this case, it was not used commercially and parody is a form of criticism, which is protected as fair use... how was he in violation again?