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

[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."

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: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

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.