Your Mashup Is Probably Legal

TV Barn writes "We've been conditioned to think that if you pull something off the web and use it, you're committing some sort of copyright infringement. But increasingly, the law is moving in the opposite direction. Provided you are making a truly new use of the content, you are free to make money off those copyrighted images and video and sound. On Monday the Center for Social Media released 'Code of Best Practices for Fair Use in Online Video,' which reflects the latest changes in copyright law that has expanded the understanding of fair use to include 'transformational effect.' Already Miro has endorsed the guidelines, as have several public broadcasters. The Center has a good track record, having issued guidelines for documentary filmmakers that have greatly reduced copyright claims in that area. The website has plenty of resources for mashers and mixers; I interviewed the Center's director in this podcast that summarizes the most important findings of the report." On the other hand, says reader kaliphonia, your guitar tablature sites may not fare so well.

Comments

Why any attempt to define "Fair Use" is pointless

[elrous0]

You can try to define "Fair Use" all you want to. But any definition is utterly meaningless in the real world because your rights are entirely and completely dependent on a number of factors that have nothing to do with any attempt to define the term:

1. The determination of the copyright owner to take you down (how far they're willing to go)
2. The determination of your host to refuse their attempt (if you're on a site like Youtube that takes down videos at the slightest complaint, this is pretty much 0)
3. Your determination and ability to defend yourself to your host and in court (i.e., do you have the financial resources and time to defend yourself and are you willing to do so?)
4. The quality and disposition of the judge in the case
5. Your ability to withstand additional harassment from the copyright owner even after the initial case (process can start over at this point, depending on the factor #1)

The Church of Scientology, for example, is a copyright holder that is VERY determined (very high in the #1 factor). They have taken down MANY critiques that clearly fell well within any reasonable definition of "Fair Use." Go up against them and it won't matter what the "definition" of Fair Use is, they will still likely prevail in any real-world scenario (unless you are also VERY determined and VERY capable of defending yourself).

Alright!

[Anonymous Coward]

So my Mickey Mouse / Prince hentei slash rape movie set in the Palladium universe using music from Metallica is perfectly legal. Sweet. Intertube fame, here I come!

Re:Why any attempt to define "Fair Use" is pointle

[rgviza]

I was about to say the same thing...

IANAL, but have an entertainment attorney (since I am a publisher/engineer/producer in my spare time) who made a very important point:

You can make fair use of content, just make sure you have the bank account to fight them when they take you to court. The golden rule applies. You can get sued for using a kick drum sample to make an original beat for a new song. Will you get sued for this?

Depends...

Would they win?

Not if you can outlast them financially in court and have the better attorney who can prove that you are making "fair use" to whatever judge is on the case.

It's a lot easier to pay $.99 to license the kick drum sample from a service that sells sound, as long as you keep your reciept:D

-Viz

Re:Why any attempt to define "Fair Use" is pointle

[DrMaurer]

Scientology has, IMO, pushed a little hard on the legal end.

Their recent attempt to have Gawker Media remove an edited interview of Tom Cruise failed. Gawker's direct response was to cite fair use. See the thread on Gawker.com from January 15th: "Tom Cruise Indoctrination Video." There are follow-ups on Chilling Effects for the Cease and Desist Letter. Gawker's response to it...etc. etc. Basically, you can still see the thing.

Then some people on 4chan seem to have started the whole Anonymous protests as a direct result of Scientology's attempts to silence Gawker. Those protests have waned recently, but were a definite sign that people do notice this stuff and take it seriously.

The definition of Fair Use is a legal one; yes, the pocketbook factor will always limit the direct legal rights you theoretically have, but if you can get a million people in masks out into the streets....