Slashdot Mirror
Disney Video Used to Explain Copyright
Recently a pretty amazing video surfaced that used clips from Disney films to explain copyright law. It was created by Eric Faden of Bucknell University and must have taken an insane amount of time to assemble. Now you have to wonder how long before someone gets sued over it. Also here is a corel cache version as well as a link to the original page.
Comments are being promoted to stories now? Maybe this one will be!
Anyone care to describe/transcribe this for those of us who can't render video?
This little exercise seems to violate the intent of Fair Use pretty much in every way. From the illegal use of the Disney logo (with animation and music) to the repeated and unnecessary use of actual Disney dialog and video, it seems that the creator missed the point entirely.
Mickey: Hi kids do you know what copyright is? Kids: Is that when you sued my dead grandmother Mickey? Mickey: That's right kids...
Infiltrated dot Net
Somewhat related and nice:
o x.html
http://dustrunners.blogspot.com/2006/07/pig-and-b
He also fails to acknowledge trademarks (i.e., the Disney logo) as a separate issue from "copyright." There is no "fair use" of trademarks like there is with copyright.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Geez guys - even BoingBoing could find this one....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo
enjoy.
Maybe someone who managed to get the mp4 file before this went live could make a torrent of it ?
Naturally a random slashdotter knows more about copyright than the people at Stanford's law center...
That might be the point, but it doesn't mean it *is* fair use. It's an edge case that I wouldn't want to have to decide about. It might be fair use, but then again it might not. The google decision recently reported will be a trivial case compared to this one, if it ever gets contested.
Maybe you should watch the video. Something the summary didn't say (but really should have) is that the video's creators exercised their fair use rights to create a video that explains copyright and fair use. But that would be too much effort for an "editor" like Taco...
This guy's the limit!
Even for the 65 seconds I could bear to watch it.
I expected something along the lines of "posting and you". Instead i got a bunch of video cuts that, even when they were brilliant, the words weren't clear enough. If he only had used subtitles...
The video falls under fair use as it makes brief use of copyrighted works in an educational manner, and doesn't devalue any of the material that it uses in its clips.
I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't hoping for a DMCA takedown notice by Disney.
We've upped our standards. Up yours.
There's no fair use of trademarks in the sense of leading people to endorse something, but you sure as hell can use them in a criticism. And indeed, that's a damning and accurtate criticism of copyright, which Disney led the charge in twisting. Ironically that success has lead to their stagnation and need to aquire other companies rather than produce there own content internally.
Jesus. You're dense. You didn't bother to watch it or you would have understood why they used Disney. They texplain it all at the end. It certainly IS fair use.
IANAL, but as stated in the video, fair use isn't a right, it's a legally defensible position, which the video itself is supposed to occupy. The use of short segments of copyrighted material for purposes of commentary and comedy is categorized as fair use. I'm pretty sure the video is a comedic commentary, and it also only uses short segments.
The coral cache link isn't working for me at least, but mirrordot seems to have caught it. Just be sure to chop off the first 3635 bytes of HTML prepended to the file.
butter the donkey
Well if you watch through the whole video you will see that they reference this video as basically being an experiment. If the creators of the video are understanding and interpreting everything they think they should be protected from the law. The only problem is that the law still allows someone to sue you even if they are wrong. Going to court and defending yourself isn't free, even if your attorney is...
Honestly, I would be quite interested in what Disney does on this one. This would be nice to track.
On the contrary, Disney is the perfect target. What other company has benefited so much by taking from the public domain, yet continuously refuses to release anything back.
Maybe you should watch the video.
Maybe I should (dang internet filtering at the office). But my point was more: "I hope this person knows what they're letting themselves in for..."
Even if this does fit within "fair use" - I've no idea, I'm not an American, and UK copyright law is far more restrictive about this sort of thing - the creator had better be prepared for the possibility of a legal fight to establish that. That's all I was saying.
Actually, if you want to get picky... if it were a copyright violation (which it isn't), then it would be a civil breach, not a criminal one.
And your post, which some might think* should be criminal, is really just indicative of a low watt bulb.
* This author does not disclose what he believes on this subject on the grounds that he would absolutely incriminate himself.
The public domain is a disgrace to the forces of evil
As I've said in another reply, I'm well aware what the purpose of the video was. My point was more that the creator had better be ready for a legal fight to demonstrate that it is fair use. I can't see Disney shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Meh. It's fair use. What's the point setting our lawyers onto them?"
Well, considering this was released in conjunction with Stanford Law School, I'm betting they're very prepared to stand up to Disney should it come down to it.
This guy's the limit!
...something that was pretty much laurel-and-hardy-slap-in-the-face implied by the video.
Episode V: "The Disney Empire Strikes Back".
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Of course. At slashdot, we know more about just about anything than those klutzes outside our IT departments. That's also why we don't even have to read the articles. We already know this stuff. And being at slashdot, you should know it too, instead of making sarcastic remarks.
Actually there is a fair use doctrine in trademark law, and it's called fair use, but it's quite different from the fair use doctrine of copyright law, which can lead to some confusion if you end up talking about both. Usually you end up having to qualify which one you mean.
I found the quick cuts too jarring to allow me to watch more than a minute of it, but as for the use of the logo in the beginning, he has a decent position. Nominative use is allowed -- how can he say he's not affiliated with Disney if he can't say the name 'Disney' in the disclaimer? But the use of the entire animated logo and music would need to fall under the overall parody, which had better be non-commercial in nature, as this one appears to be. His position isn't airtight; he'd've done better to just simply say that he wasn't affiliated with Disney, rather than to use the logo animation, but he has a decent argument in his favor.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
All I can say about this is... wow. What a piece of editing that was. Just the shear workforce-hours involved documenting the needed phrases within Disney works. The dripping irony of using Disney clips is too precious for words.
I'm not one to waste space with a "me too" post that is essentially just the noise of me clapping, but this video deserves a standing ovation.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
What is it with all the name-calling on /. lately? We're sliding towards the Digg-level here... Please moderate your language people!
-- Cheers!
I have to disagree.
The use of the Disney logo doesn't violate trademark law because it was accompanied by a "this movie is not endorsed by:" line. The purpose of trademark law is not to prevent people from reproducing imagery, but rather to avoid consumer confusion. I don't think many consumers would be confused by a large disclaimer stating "this is not affiliated with Disney!" (anymore than they would think that my post is endorsed by Disney, simply because I use their name in my post).
Furthermore, the entire video is both a massive comedic parody, and a commentary on the current state of copyright. As the video points out, these are two things which are supposedly protected by fair use. You are allowed to use clips in order to criticize something and/or for satire.
Another bit of irony is that the author of the video threw in some clips from Aladdin, where the genie was performing satire. If you've ever watched Aladdin, you'll know how many jokes in that movie revolved around the genie making reference to all kinds of movies and actors. Many of the genie's lines are taken verbatim from other movies, for instance.
So, if Disney is protected by the satire/parody clause in copyright, why isn't this short, informative, humorous video? If a video like this is not protected by fair use (does it reduce the economic potential of Aladdin to show 8 clips, each 0.8 seconds long, from that movie?) then the law is ever more broken than I previously thought.
Seriously, is Buzz Lightyear the only character to ever say the word "copy" in any disney animated film?
A lot of hard work must have gone into this. But, well, the results are less than stellar. But in a ways it's more like a piece of bait for the legal department of Disney. It's not so much the message of the movie itself, but it's ability to force a reaction, that exactly the point of the message itself, that's interesting.
Viral marketing payed by the legal department of Disney, if you want. If it works. If Disney can't find a quiet way to kill it. On the otherhand, if they do not try to kill it, a small piece of fair use got got accepted, and will set a precedence. A win-win situation, as far as I see it.
TC - My Photos..
...that's what I would do anyway. Oh yes, it's funny. It's uhm.. hilarious. Look at that.. snippets from Disney productions used to explain the evils of copyright. Yeah. So what else is on?
/is/ COPY.. rrrright? COPY COPY.. rrright? IT! /is/.. a.. rrright! by the COPY!.. rrright OOOwner... etc. Would you like your newspaper to be written in the style of a 'ransom note'? Sure, it'd be interesting for a day, it might even enter history as a landmark publication.. but you wouldn't want to read it again. And more likely than not, you're not going to remember what the thing read. I don't even remember what this video was trying to tell me, exactly.. just that it annoyed the crap out of me - in a bad way. Quite unlike commercials for tampons and such which are very annoying as well, but I sure remember that they now come in a silky smooth and curved lines-variant for ease insertion from Tampax.
Seriously, watch the thing.. What..
So if Disney is smart.. they'll ignore it, and it'll go away faster than the SONY 'rootkit' outrage.
A much better video would have used snippets of the first Mickey Mouse adventure etc. with clear and concise narration, law references, case references, and so forth - it would hold attention much better.
imho anyway - perception is a personal thing after all
The fact that Disney is working so hard to extend copyrights to an indefinite amount of time is rather ironic considering their biggest hits are from public domain stories. In fact, I hope a good EFF or other lawyer gets to point out in court that basically Disney would not likely exist if it weren't for the public domain.
Do really dense people warp space more than others?
Strictly ignorant lay opinion here, but I'd think it would be OK according to the informal fair-use guidelines widely referenced by universities and libraries, e.g. the University of Texas system.
"Factor 1: Character of the use:" seems to me that in their first column it's nonprofit, and arguably educational. In the middle, it's criticism, commentary, and most bodaciously "transformative."
"Factor 2: What is the nature of the work to be used?": Imaginative and published, somewhere in the "doesn't tip the balance" part of University of Texas' scale.
"Factor 3: How much of the work will you use?" Only a small amount is being used for each work. I'm not sure what the total amount used from any individual work is, but it's tiny.
"Factor 4: If this kind of use were widespread, what effect would it have on the market for the original or for permissions?" I find it impossible to believe that a person with a copy of this video would show it to their kids in lieu of any of the Disney films from which the clips were taken. And I don't believe the Disney organization is currently making any money at all licensing clips for use in videos like this one.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Fair use allows for editorial or teaching use of segments of works - which is what this video is.
Furthermore it makes use of content from the company that you could argue has benefited the most of anyone from works in the public domain - Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, etc. etc. Is it any wonder the quality of Disney movies has declined since this source or original creativity to base stories on has dried up thanks to longer copyright terms?
Use of Disney works to give this lesson is genius, and makes a number of great points all at once. It's not like they would be sued anyway, it would just be taken off YouTube.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Shut up, poopyhead.
"It seems that the creator missed the point entirely."
Or you missed the intentional joke of finding the edge of what the creator can/can't do.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
maby YOU should have watched the video... then you'd know its not fair use "right".... they exercised their fair use legaly defendable position.....
sorry... had to point that out....
Noone writes jokes in base 13!
"It was created by Eric Faden of Bucknell University and must have taken an insane amount of time to assemble. "
It's brilliant, and all credit to Mr. Faden for his great work.
But re: "it must have taken an insane amount of time to assemble"... Just to point out how it looks from the other guy's point of view, I'd estimate (as a filmmaker) that it'd take me a couple of days to cut something like this together, plus a couple of days research. i.e. four days or so for one person. Please compare and contrast with the 3-4 years it took hundreds if not thousands of people to make any of one the movies shown in the montage.
Now that's "an insane amount of time to assemble".
I'm not defending unfair copyright -- but please remember, this stuff doesn't grow on trees.
And we all know that no corporation has ever sued anyone over something that's covered by fair use. Getting sued and winning the lawsuit are two different things.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
He could refer to Disney and use the Disney name without any problem, but the wholesale use of the logo, animation, sound is over the line for fair use.
you actually read the green screen FBI warning, it's not your ordinary copyright notice :)
Since when did Corel enter the web mirroring buisness?
Satire is fair use.
Given Disney's stance on extending copyright indefinitely, it seems to me that was the author's intent.
As for use of the logo, there could be trademark issues, but satire is, of course, fair use for trademark as well.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
look quietly when the girl says "i don't have any money sir"
?
Here's two more chances.
& v=K4b7o4CJDdw
e lated&search=
Ariel is a dirty mermaid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related
and Jasmine is a dirty princess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqpD4zX7Sw0&mode=r
Original animation with the songs redubbed...holy crap, funny! Disney's Nazgul are already riding, the creators will be dragged back to Mouschwitz for sure.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Original page and coral cache seem to be already slashdotted, so the only way to get it is that eeeeviiil torrent thing.
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
...the video's creators exercised their fair use rights to create a video that is a farce about Disney and copyright and fair use.
There, fixed that for you.
May the Farce be with you.
Watch the F[reaking\|ine\|air-use] video.
/.
Oh wait, this is
Nevermind.
I love the "The public domain is a disgrace to the forces of evil" at 4:58
if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
The video, as far as I can tell, is like exploratory surgery.
Tangentially, actually watching it much like surgery, as well.
What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
Fair Use is not a defense against getting sued. It's a defense you can use at the trial once you do get sued. Disney is pretty touchy about their copyrights, and are likely to sue either in a belief that fair use doesn't apply here, or just as a bludgeon against people who can't afford to defend themselves.
The entire piece, including the Disney logo, is satirical and therefore protected. The key element is that the entire piece is satirical. Don't try to pull one section from the rest and you will clearly see that the authors are using everything to point out how ridiculous the laws on copyright have become.
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Now we just need to get the EFF's protection and backing if this video is challenged in any way. How much egg in their face can they handle if they attempt to have this video yanked down? After all, it's all about education, parody and free expression and while all of its video and audio content is derived from Disney cartoons, the bits and pieces are so small that it's unquestionably small enough to be within fair use rules. And does it diminish the value of the original work? I think "no" but that's probably the best angle for Disney lawyers to take.
To be fair- the average slashdotter has probably been arguing copyright law here (and lawyers are in the mix) for several years.
So they at least more aware than the average populace.
Of course some are complete loons or in denial of the actual law.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Of course he'd have legally done better to just say that, but then it wouldn't be as effective. The whole point is that companies fight against fair use, and will intimidate you into giving up your right to fair use (by, say, not using the whole logo) to avoid getting a lawsuit that will bankrupt you even if you're right.
You should have watched the whole thing; it was much more than a mere explanation of copyright, as the summary claims.
They are the defenders of copyright! If it wasn't for their lobbying efforts the copyright of Mickey Mouse would already have expired. Imagine the chaos! Anyone would be able to create Mickey Mouse material, effectively stealing money from Disney's pockets and removing all incentive for them to create anything new - it would give people free reign to steal their work.
...Oh, wait...
If copyrights expire then everyone could just profit from other people's work instead of having to come up with original material the way Disney has over the years. Imagine if Disney could just use works with expired copyright instead of creating originals like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast, Treasure Island (Planet), the Little Mermaid and hundreds more
siener's youtube channel
It is in some ways, but not others. For instance, parodic use is not explicitly permitted under the fair dealing defence, but the Gowers review recommended that it be explicitly included - which HMG has accepted. The courts have repeatedly held that parody is generally acceptable. News reporting, criticism and education, however, are explicitly allowed as defences. This video would almost certainly fall under the second and third items of that list.
But the real limiter in UK copyright is the actual damages provision. Unlike the USA, the UK courts require you to qualify and quantify the damages you or your company have suffered as a result of the infringement. Additional damages can be claimed for flagrant and generally commercial benefit from the infringement. But there's none of the absurdly inflated statutory damages that you see in US cases. This really does help to limit stupid de minimis cases clogging the courts, which sadly is not the case in the USA.
Don't get me wrong - I'm more than a bit unhappy with UK/EU copyright regimes, but the Gowers report (and the howls of fury it caused from Big Copyright) gave me just a glimmer of hope that a sane discussion of copyright is at least possible in the EU. Then IPRED2 happened to crush even that...
--Ng
"It (...) must have taken an insane amount of time to assemble."
If I were to do such a video, I would rather automagically cut and assemble it with a quick and dirty parser, the subtitles, and a few scripting for instance: nothing much complicated.
Parody is protected because it's a criticism of the work itself. Using works to make a comment on something else (e.g., copyright law) is a key element of satire, but I don't think it's necessarily protected because it is satire.
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
According to Sec. 1201 (a)(1)(A) of the DMCA: Disney can probably argue that all forms of media released for some of these films contained technological measures to control access to the work. So VHS versions probably contained Macrovision copy protection, and DVDs contained CSS. And therefore the author of this film circumvented the technology measure to create this work. Although another part of the authors intent here might have been to show that the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision unduly burdens fair use.
There's a collary there. A typical slashdotter knows more than whoever the expert is in the story only to the extent that he has not RTFA.
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
It's educational, non-profit, and only uses small portions of copyrighted works to make it's point. If that's not fair use, then snalshdot isn't a website.
You can't take the sky from me...
Is it just me, or was the word "value" missing from ALL of the movies sampled so that someone had to put the word into Gantu's mouth to make this video? That was the only clippette that seemed to be dubbed. Does that mean there's no value in Disney's movies to to change though fair use to begin with? :)
Calling CmdrTaco a moron is not a good way to become popular on Slashdot. Do some fucking research and find out who he is before you post.
Opera users who view the YouTube stream will find the 29 MB .TMP file already sitting in their cache where it's easily converted to a 49MB .MPG with Batch FLV Converter (for those who can't play .FLVs directly).
Anyone else can download the 71 MB .MP4 directly from here: http://www.filmspot.com/users/jrgreenmd/show_blog_ entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25002790
No need to visit the PirateBay - unless you're ready to pounce on POTC III.
- js.
According to the credits at the end of the video, it contains excepts from the following Disney Films:
Aladdin
Alice in Wonderland
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
Bambi
Beauty and the Beast
Dumbo
The Emperor's New Grove
Finding Nemo
Hercules
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
The Incredibles
Jungle Book
Lilo and Stitch
The Lion King
The Little Mermaid
Monsters, Inc
Mulan
101 Dalmatians
Peter Pan
Pinocchio
Sleeping Beauty
Snow white and the Seven Dwarves
Tarzan
Tarzan II
Toy Story
Toy Story 2
Treasure Planet
Dan East
Better known as 318230.
As someone pointed out, this video was "released in conjunction with Stanford Law School". Oh, you should have creators. The end credits had a bunch of names there.
General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
I'm going to listen to downloaded music while downloading movies and dance a copyrighted dance all at the same time!
Brilliantly written and edited. I was enlightened by the part that says fair use is not a right, it's a legally defensible position. It is legal to copy a copyrighted work for the fair use purposes such as critique and satire. But the author has no responsiblity to make that copying convenient.
Movie studios have every right to make copying video discs difficult. They're not obligated to sell unencrypted data; they sell bits and we voluntarily buy bits. But it must not be made illegal for purchasers to circumvent that copy protection if they are able.
And I truly wish that the creators and Congress would remember that there are two parts to the bargain of copyright: an unnatural protection of creative works from copying and a reasonable, limited duration for that protection. Congress might have the right to extend the copyright duration to forever and a day, but it's a stupid move because it stifles the creativity that copyright is meant to promote.
AlpineR
It wouldn't surprise me if Disney came at this from an entirely different direction.
:)
How did the author obtain those clips? Hopefully he just recorded them off the TV. If he circumvented the Macrovision on a VHS tape or the CSS encryption on a DVD to obtain those clips couldn't Disney come after them for DMCA violations? I know that the DMCA has provisions for educational uses, but based on the parts of the DMCA which I have read they would only apply in the following event:
Every three years, the Librarian of Congress has to make a determination on whether persons who would like to use works in a non-infringing manor [ie. fair use] might be adversely affected by the protection schemes of the work stopping them from making use of the work.
Then the Librarian has to 'publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined' would apply in that situation. [See http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html ]
So of the Librarian of Congress hasn't decided that Disney films might need to be used for non-infringing works, and published them for the current three year period, then from what I can tell, Disney would have the right to send a DMCA takedown notice, even though it is used for 'education' or 'critical' purposes, *IF* they believe that the author circumvented the protection schemes on VHS or DVD meda in order to obtain the clips they used.
Then again, I'm just some schmo posting on Slashdot from work. What the heck do I know?
Nothing to see here
I'm also just a non-lawyer schmo posting from work, but I won't let that stop me, either :-)
What you're saying is that if Disney argued circumvention, they could say that the video was infringing even if it was Fair Use. As I read the law, it doesn't work like that. Circumvention doesn't imply infringement, it's just another way to smack down people who make infringing copies, or who make or provide tools that others could use to make copies -- which may or may not be infringing. I think Disney might be able to convince a Federal prosecutor to indict Faden (the anti-circumvention parts of the DMCA are criminal law, so Disney can't do it directly. Yet) but the question of whether or not the video would stay on youtube would be unaffected. Disney can issue a takedown notice, and Faden can respond with a formal "it's Fair Use", and youtube would then be able to safely leave it up until a court decided if it really was Fair Use or not. IIRC, Title 17 even explicitly clarifies that the anti-circumvention statute does not limit Fair Use or other exceptions codified in the law.
The big problem with the law is that it does not say that circumvention is allowed for legal usage. I think it's possible that Faden could be fined or sent to jail for circumvention, even though a civil court found that the video constituted Fair Use. So anyone who wanted to could legally distribute the video, but Faden would be in jail for making it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Entire piece is also educational. So even if you argue that it isn't supposed to be satire (which it might not be), it's still specifically for the purpose of education.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Hey, some of us are amateur groklavians as well, you know..
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
The video rightly points out that it is important for ideas to become part of the public domain, as new ideas are built upon the older ones, and as a whole, exposure to those ideas are beneficial to a culture. However, I'm not fully convinced modern copyright laws have a negative impact on those beneficial aspects. Not too long ago access to the works (containers of the ideas) was difficult to attain - works were expensive to reproduce and difficult to obtain. With the advent of the modern media, public library systems, the Internet, etc., the works are fairly easy to obtain - even difficult to avoid at times - and the ideas they contain flow pretty freely throughout our culture.
So, even if a company like Disney were to obtain a copyright for 1,000 years how are the benefits to our culture reduced? Are we less off because we can't write "The Lion King 4" using the same characters/storylines from the movie? The ideas and themes in those movies are already reproduced in hundreds and thousands of works (both older and newer than the movies) - so what's the downside?
Asking for a well-reasoned reply...and, yes, I know this is Slashdot... But I'd like to add to my thinking on this - which I realize may be lacking.
Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
In a similar vein, Burgess' "1985" will be public domain in 2063, but I don't like that book anyway so I don't mind if I don't live that long.
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
The problem is, it's somewhat socialist to prevent someone from profiting on their work indefinitely.
Limiting copyright doesn't prevent someone from profiting on their work indefinitely, it just removes a specific mechanism that grants them the exclusive right to do so. In other words, yes, you're taking something away from the artists - but the question is whether that level of exclusivity should have been given to them in the first place. Copyright is a fundamentally artificial thing - you can't "possess" an idea, once you've shared it with others - that doesn't make copyright wrong, but I personally feel it shouldn't be quite so extensive.For instance: suppose Aerosmith were to perform a song they wrote twenty years ago. Fine, they're still making money from their old work, good for them. Copyright isn't what grants them that ability - it's the fact that the audience recognizes them as the original performers of the song that makes their performance of the song notable. And if the song fell into the public domain, the loss of copyright control doesn't deny them the ability to do that, either. Other artists could cover the song if it passed into the public domain, or sample it for use in their songs. So long as they do a good job of it they, too, deserve a measure of financial reward.
With something like a film it's more difficult, of course: when the film goes public domain, anyone can sell copies of it. The profitability of the movie is then rather limited once copyright lapses. Copyright could be re-asserted by creating a new version of the work, but that's about it. (for instance, suppose "Star Wars" had fallen into public domain by 1997: the "Special Editions" would contain the original film, of course, but would constitute a new work based upon it - meaning that if the audience wants the special edition rather than the original, the copyright control is effectively extended... though nothing prevents someone else from making their own "Special Edition" in this scenario...) Alternately, remakes, sequels, etc. could be made - since again, other people could do this as well, the creators would have to distinguish their works somehow - name-dropping (getting the original cast and writers back, or getting their endorsements, and making this known) would be one way, simply making a better film would be another.
The recurring theme in either case, however, is this: During the copyright period you get exclusivity that increases your profits. Afterwards, you have to keep working if you want to keep getting paid.
There's nothing inherently "right" about the current length of copyright - it currently gives the creator enough exclusivity to give them a lifetime of profit from a single work, to maintain exclusivity through three generations worth of audience. That's enough time for a work to be not only a major hit, but a major cultural phenomenon - combining that kind of span with exclusivity gives the creator a lot of power - too much, perhaps.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
(I'm neither a lawyer nor American, so I may well be wrong, but I'd really like to see citations of actual statutes or case-law that state with certainty that this video will be ruled infringing if Disney decide to go to court.)
For the record, parent is correct, GP is not. Parody is generally protected, and satire is generally not. Someone should mod accordingly. (Still no -1; Wrong though.)
Here is a treatment which I just found on the web, and so do not vouch for. Other descriptions are easy to find.
-snarkbot
"Factor 4: If this kind of use were widespread, what effect would it have on the market for the original or for permissions?"
Well after seeing this video, I'm never buying any Disney products again!
(OK, I wasn't already)
(OK, I've been a hypocrite for Studio Ghibli films)
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
OK, maybe I do...
But the video is 10 minutes long, and copyright used to be 14 years, not 17...
But I agree with your stance, I don't see why a creator of a work shouldn't have copyright over that work for the length of their life... and a company should have copyright for the length of an average human life or so.
Oh, wait. Nevermind.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
How is this, or "is this", different than "sampling"?
I.e. -- in the audio industry, I had (have) the vague impression that one had to have permission to include samples of someone else's song as a component in a new song.
Perhaps the legality hinges on this being a non-commercial work, whereas if it was commercial, Disney could be all over them?
What a fine line.... and yes...it is a shame that our current congress gives special regard and protection to corporations at the expense of the "people" / society / "the public".
Our society is that much "poorer" in that corporations have managed to "steal" their content from what used to be public domain (i.e. the time after the original 14 (17?) year copyright period).
Funny the video should not include Mickey Mouse (Steamboat Willie has exceeded its period) and Winnie The Pooh (a long legal fight over ownership has raged). Loved it nonetheless.
"Copy..." - Buzz Lightyear
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Generally, this is not true. There are two bodies of law in the US, statutory law and common law. The statutory law is written law created by legislative bodies, such as Congress, state legislatures, administrative agencies, etc. The common law is somewhat more nebulous, and is created by the courts. Where they are in conflict, the statutory law overrides the common law. Courts routinely must interpret the law, whether statutory or common, in order to determine precisely what the language of the law actually means. There are often disagreements as to the meaning of the law, whether it is acceptable to look outside the law for clues as to the meaning (e.g. a contemporaneous statement by the lawmaker that goes 'What I meant, when I drafted this law was...,' if so what sources may be considered, whether a given possible meaning makes sense in the context of other laws, etc. To help settle these disagreements, courts will look to what other courts have interpreted the laws to mean in the past. This is useful for several reasons, not the least of which is consistency, i.e. if case A is like case B, a court will generally behave in deciding case A in the same way that it did in deciding case B. There are two parallel court systems: state courts, and federal courts. They don't outrank one another, save in certain circumstances (i.e. the federal courts are more authoritative at federal issues, and the state courts at state issue). There is also a hierarchy, where you have trial courts at the lowest level, appellate courts at the intermediate level, and supreme courts at the highest level. Any opinion by any court may be cited as precedent, but decisions made by a higher court are binding on the courts below it. There are also divisions along geographic lines. For example, there are several federal district courts (trial courts) serving different portions of the state of New York. All of them fall under the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (appellate court). And both the district courts and the circuit court fall under the Supreme Court, which is nationwide. Many, if not all states, do something similar with county courts and circuits over them.
In many other countries there is a civil law system in which there's no precedents or common law. I don't know much about it, but it seems bizarre to me. I like what we've got.
Or did you mean that fair use is decided on a case by case basis? This is absolutely true for copyright fair use. But trademark fair use is a bit more limited. Trademark fair use, found at 15 USC 1115(b)(4), is this:
It's a bit more of a bright line in some respects than copyright fair use. There's still the vague word 'fairly' which could be stretched or compressed as a court saw fit, but you have to get to that point by not losing on any of the more simple tests, e.g. that you're not using the mark as a mark.
Still, the filmmaker is parodying Disney itself, which is infamous for its meddling with copyright and is taking strong steps to avoid confusion. I don't think that his position vis-a-vis the logo is as strong as it could be, but I don't think he's screwed.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
+Raider of the lost BBS
It's allowed for purposes of teaching. This is an educational video.
GENERAL PUBLIC SIGNATURE (GPS) Any replies (derivatives) of this post must also use the GPS
A good point, and doubly so because no one has ever taken the time to respond to my "-1; Wrong" snarks before and point out the downside of adding one. It just gets frustrating when the mod system hides the replies at 1 which correct the parent at 4 or 5. Not that I have a solution. :)
Thanks!
-snarkbot