Fair Use for Presentations?

Fubar asks: "The company I work for provides training 'workshops' to various folks in the finance industry. The folks who give the presentations during the workshops are considering adding short clips from various movies to help illustrate their points. In my searching, I have found evidence that basically seems to suggest the practice COULD be either a) fine or b) illegal. Not exactly the black & white answer I was hoping to find."

Comments

OK, here's my fair use example

[$RANDOMLUSER]

OK, this is supposed to be "insightful", not "funny". If you don't know "Fantasia", don't bother.

Back in the day, I was teaching Java at the local community college. Every semester, I'd bring in "Fantasia" and show the Mickey Mouse as Sorcerer's Apprentice bit. Mickey would watch the sorcerer, who'd go off to bed, then Mickey would start the broomsticks filling the well, (dum da dadada dum da) things would get out of hand, and the broomsticks would split and split and split. Next thing you know, Mickey's afloat on the sorcerer's book, frantically turning pages, trying to figure out how to make it stop.

I'd pause the tape then, and after a long time starting at Mickey floating atop the book, I'd say:

"NOW he checks the docs."

Re:OK, here's my fair use example

[$RANDOMLUSER]

I make a lot of my points with humor. Jesus told parables, I tell jokes. The goal of either is to make you think. Try it sometime.

If you're nice to me, maybe I'll tell you the pot roast joke. Guaranteed programmers ROFL, because it's true, but said in a funny way.

Re:OK, here's my fair use example

[AKAImBatman]

You've never heard the Pot Roast joke? What's this world coming to?! We'd better correct that immediately! :-)

The joke goes like this:

A newly-wed husband noticed that every time his wife cooked a ham, she would first cut off a quarter of it and put it in another pan. She would then put both pans into the oven to cook them. After pondering over why she might be doing this, he finally decided to ask her, "Honey, why do you always put a quarter of the ham in another pan?"

"Why, I don't know," she replied. "My mother always did it that way, so that's the way I do it."

Being a curious fellow, he convinced his wife to ask her mother next time she saw her.

A few weeks later, she's talking with her mom and asks about the ham. "Mother, why did you always cut off a quarter of the ham before cooking it?"

"Why, I don't know," she replied. "My mother always did it that way, so that's the way I do it!"

When she related this to her husband, they both became even more curious! After much wrangling about bothering her grandmother (who was currently residing in a nursing home, bless her heart) they decided to pay her a visit and ask about the ham.

A few days later, they visit her at the home with a beautiful bouquet of flowers. She is duely impressed and asks to what she owes the visit. The couple, feeling a bit embarrassed, beat around the bush for awhile. After a bit of chatting, they finally get up the nerve to ask.

"Grandmother, we've been wondering. I learned from mother to always cut off a quarter of the ham before cooking it. When I asked her why she did it, she said that she learned it from you. So we're kind of curious, why do you cut off a quarter of the ham before cooking it?"

"What?!?" she exclaims, "You came all this way to ask me that?!?"

"Um. Yes grandma," the granddaughter replies sheepishly.

Grandma huffed a little at the rediculous question, shook her head, and then finally uttered her answer,

"There's only one reason why I always cut a quarter of the ham off before I cooked it. My pan was too small!"

I leave you to figure out the moral of the story. :-)

Re:OK, here's my fair use example

[$RANDOMLUSER]

> Dude, this pot roast joke had better be good, I was all set to moderate three posts in this thread, but I gotta hear it.

Damn, two of my best stories blown on one thread, no funny voices or inflections, just ASCII, but, OK, since you ask so nice, and I haven't been hammered by the "overrated" mod trolls yet:

There's a newlywed couple; he's watching her make dinner, and he asks:
"Why do you cut the end off the pot roast like that?"
And she says:
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".
And he says:
"Well, you don't have to cut the end of the pot roast off like that".
And she says:
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".

So they get into (their first) huge fight.

She calls her mom in tears and asks:
"Mom, why did you teach me to cut off the end of the pot roast like that?"
And her mom says
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".
And she says:
"Well, Jeff says you don't have to do it that way."
And her mom says:
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".

Now, totally confused, the girl calls her gran, and asks:
"Gran, why did you teach my mom, and she taught me, to cut off the end of the pot roast like that?"
Her gran thinks for a minute and says:
"I don't have a pan that big".

Ba Dum Cha!

Just to spoil the joke by explaining it:

For those of you just joining us, the point would be something along the lines of:
"The workarounds of one generation become the religious dictums to the next generation."

Re:OK, here's my fair use example

[AKAImBatman]

I see you cut and pasted this from a spell-checker-free site while I was fooling with telling a story and HTML formatting.

Nope. I quoted it from memory on the spot, adding my own embellishments. I waited around a good 10 minutes or before I start, just to make sure you weren't posting it. Then I went ahead and typed it up.

Next time, HURRY UP!

:D

No clear answer...

[kebes]

IANAL, but I don't think you're going to find a clear answer. What you're talking about is a fringe case, so it's always up for debate. However, you should consider:

1. Is it 'necessary' in the sense that you need that clip to make a point? Remember that satire, commentary, and even artistic pieces are protected. If you need the clip to make your point, then it's probably okay (subject to the next two points)...

2. Is it a small usage? If you are showing only a small clip from a full movie (1%), then it's probably fine.

3. Is it commercial? ... in the sense of "are you somehow limiting the original content owner's market?" If you're showing the full movie and charging people, you are cutting into the copyright holder's market (they charge ppl to see the movie, after all). If you are just using a short clip to make a point, and charging people for the presentation/training as a whole, then it's a fair use. Unless the copyright holder in question is actively trying to sell in the "clips for use in training sessions" market, then you're not cutting into his business.

There will never be an iron-clad answer (that can only come out of a court decision). However if you seem to be "okay" with respect to 1, 2, and 3... I would guess that nearly any judge would not find you guilty of copyright infringement.

I also know that in Canada there are explicit exceptions for education. Thus, if it is for teaching you can make copies of a copyrighted work and distribute these to the class. The only requirement is that you properly log all your usage, and that there is no viable, available, commercial alternative that performs the exact same function. I'm not sure if something similar exists in the US.

The only people who will tell you that this is "obviously illegal" are those who are trying to exagerrate how extensive copyright really is. Of course, this is just my interpretation of the laws in question.

Re:Interesting question...

[Zocalo]

I guess it depends on where "fair use" ends and "copyright infringement begins", which is probably quite a large grey area which both sides would like to be black and white, although probably not with the same proportions of "black" and "white". You could probably use the standard disclaimer most DVDs seem to force you to watch as a starting point; if it has words to the effect of "public broadcast of any part of this product are prohibited", then that's pretty clear cut. Failing that, you would really need to either consult a lawyer or, better yet, get something in writing from the producer(s) about what they would consider acceptable. The latter actually isn't all that difficult to get, or at least it wasn't a few years ago when an employer wanted to use some movie clips and stills in a publically available presentation; it the main it was "keep it brief and give us a credit with our copyright stated on it".

Re:Seriously...

[Anonymous Coward]

I recommend hiring a regular attorney. Those fucking attorneys are real assholes.

Here's an article to look at

[kaufmanmoore]

look at this article from the intellectual property and technology forum at BC's law school, a few pages down it provides a hypothetical about using a film clip in a training presentation and how it couple be considered fair use. link

Welcome to Copyright Law

[QuantumG]

Where even the lawyers can't agree on what is legal and what is not.

Re:Welcome to Copyright Law

[whoppers]

And that's how they make their money, if everything was black & white the lawyers would have nothing to do. Same with the tax laws. Imagine if the tax laws were consolidated, all the loopholes taken away. Billions of dollars would be saved that companies could put back into development, their workforce, etc.. Course the tax experts would have to find a new career but since their buddies write the tax laws, it's just a big circle jerk and we're all funding this.

Fair use is only a legal defense

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The concept of "fair use" is really only a legal defense in case you are sued/prosecuted for copyright infringement. This effectively means there are no hard and fast rules as to what is OK and what is not OK - it is all subject to interpretation and one person's grey area may be another judge's clear distinction.

Here's the relevant section of the law:

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.

As you can see, there is lots of room for interpretation - which, like most of the law, helps to keep the unemployment rate among lawyers very low.

Legit vs Non-Legit Usage

[Alien54]

IANAL but here goes as far as my understanding goes.

If you are in an art history class, and were citing The Simpsons in their impact on culture in the Late 20th century, then use of images and clips to illustrate the point in this discussion about the Simpsons is fine and quite legit. You are likely not using an entire show, but might have clips of entire bits or segments.

On the other hand, if you are selling a product called BARFO, then the use of the Simpsons is not legitimate, as it is likely the use of a copyrighted image in the promotion of a product, without licensing.

Internal usage inside a company, such as a sales training manual, would probably pass because the danger of getting caught is low. This would probably be inside a single office.

External usage, say in the training of Vendors, or across a much larger campany area is probably in dangerous territory, probably because it is unlicensed usage, and the danger of getting caught is much higher. This brings to mind the phrase "not a career enhancing decision". Lawyers might get to know you well. This is not always a good thing

For an example, see this discussion of a classic cartoonist instruction book, where the first edition had to be changed in the second edition, so as not use well known characters of the day. The first edition used all famous characters, many of which you may recognise. Link one and Link two

These links are heavy with illustrations. which enlarge when you click on them.

Thus you could likely use simpson inspired characters, or simpson style characters,

Using the actual simpson characters in materials to be distributed outside the company into a semi-public or public area Is probably very bad. Similar to using them on a company website or blog, again, without permission.

I only know this...

[Seraphim_72]

From the great Lawrence Lessig's Free Culture:

"I've seen the flash of recognition when people get this point, but only a few times. The first was at a conference of federal judges in California. The judges were gathered to discuss the emerging topic of cyber-law. I was asked to be on the panel. Harvey Saferstein, a well-respected lawyer from an L.A. firm, introduced the panel with a video that he and a friend, Robert Fairbank, had produced.

The video was a brilliant collage of film from every period in the twentieth century, all framed around the idea of a 60 Minutes episode. The execution was perfect, down to the sixty-minute stopwatch. The judges loved every minute of it.

When the lights came up, I looked over to my copanelist, David Nimmer, perhaps the leading copyright scholar and practitioner in the nation. He had an astonished look on his face, as he peered across the room of over 250 well-entertained judges.Taking an ominous tone, he began his talk with a question: "Do you know how many federal laws were just violated in this room?""

These are ominous, deep and dark waters that you want to wade through. Get a lawyer, a very good lawyer.

Sera

Theory and practice.

[A beautiful mind]

In theory, you're 100% covered by fair use.

In practice, fair use is an incredibly fuzzy thing. If you can't pay or your company can't pay a team of lawyers to protect your fair use rights against the 800lb gorillas from Hollywood, then you better not do it.

Lawrence Lessig details this issue in his book. Basically, even if it is a cut clear case of fair use, even then it is only clear cut as long as you have the lawyers to back that up. Lessig mentions the case when some documentary filmmaker was filming in a theatre and there was about 4 seconds of Simpsons caught on footage from a tv in the corner of the recorded picture. The guy who made the documentary wanted to clear rights for that 4 seconds, and the company who owns the rights to Simpsons demanded $10,000 (for something theoretically free under fair use). He couldn't even think about just using it anyway based on fair use, because the company he was making the documentary for had insured his production. It ment that lawyers would review the production and they would look for (among others) fair use parts, and if they didn't clear rights for those supposedly fair use parts from the copyright holder, they would most certainly never approve the production, because in their opinion it would carry too much of a risk factor.

So there you have it, theory and practice.