Slashdot Mirror
Parody and Satire Videos, Which Is Fair Use?
Hugh Pickens writes "Ben Sheffner writes that both sides in Don Henley's lawsuit against California US Senate candidate Chuck DeVore (R) over campaign 'parody' videos that used Henley's tunes set to lyrics mocking Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) have now filed cross-motions for summary judgment, teeing up a case that will likely clarify the rules for political uses of third-party material. The motions focus largely on one issue: whether the videos, which use the compositions 'The Boys of Summer' and 'All She Wants to do is Dance,' are 'parodies,' and thus likely fair uses, or, rather, unprivileged 'satires.' The Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), said that a parody comments on the work itself; a satire uses the work to comment on something else, so for Henley, this is a simple case: DeVore's videos do not comment on Henley's songs but use Henley's songs to mock Boxer. DeVore argues that his videos do indeed target Henley, who has long been identified with liberal and Democratic causes, and asserts that the campaign chose to use Henley's songs for precisely that reason. 'DeVore's videos target Henley only in the loosest sense,' writes Sheffner, 'and his brief's arguments ... sound dangerously close to the post hoc rationalizations dismissed as "pure shtick" and "completely unconvincing" by the Ninth Circuit in Dr. Seuss Enters. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (1997).' The case also bears directly on the recent removal of the 'Downfall' clips from YouTube where many journalists have almost automatically labeled the removed videos 'parodies' while the vast majority aren't, says Sheffner."
Wonder if this might relate to PA using Strawberry Shortcake in a parody of the style of games American McGee would make.
I was under the impression that for the most part political speech enjoyed a far higher level of protection than most and this seems to fall very clearly into that category.
Hmm. To a dark place this line of thought will carry us. Great care we must take.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I wonder if the RIAA supports Mr. Devore... probably not. Oh well, it happens.
"Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet." General James Mattis
Parody but don't *use* the original work. When Weird Al makes a song parody (ignore for the moment that he gets permission and probably shares in royalties) he and his team don't just take the original music and sing over it. It's RE-RECORDED. That's the key. You can get away with the similarities and same song composition but you have to at least lift a finger and do the work yourself. You wanna be lazy, then the consequences are paying someone else, either for use of the work or as damages in a lawsuit later.
When I think of parody the first thing that comes to mind is Weird Al, and I can't really recall any of his songs commenting on the original work itself.
The definition of parody that I find is "A work or performance that imitates another work or performance with ridicule or irony." [Wiktionary.org]
Is the 'legal' definition different?
The political video is both a parody and a satire, but parody is enough to encompass the work entirely.
Political speech enjoys higher levels of protection, but misuse of copyrighted works is not a free speech issue. It is a, oh what's the word, copyright issue. You do understand that, in order to work at all, copyright trumps free speech, except in limited circumstances like fair use and parody.
Republicans have a long, sordid history of using music without permissions, they especially love to use songs from artists who are not Republicans. Google 'republicans stealing music.'
This was the first page that came up: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/77309/a_pattern_of_republicans_stealing_music_from_bands_who_don't_like_them/
Here's another: http://www.theinsider.com/news/1264982_Can_the_Republicans_Stop_Stealing_Everybody_s_Music
And another: http://crooksandliars.com/2008/06/14/mccain-caught-stealing-democratic-music
It's pretty amazing how often they do it, and get away with it despite the protests and legal actions of the artists involved. It's the Republican party saying, "We don't have to play by the rules, fuck you!" to artists who disagree with them. Classy.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Excellent analysis here: http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2010/04/henley-devore-file-dueling-briefs-in.html
One of my former professors is litigating this case. Although it seems like he has an uphill battle, I hope he succeeds.
In music the composition, the lyrics and the recording are all covered by copyright. You are required to pay royalties for covers and adaptations regardless of whether you use the actual recording.
Freedom of speech does not mean a free-for-all usage of anything available to express any point of view. You are free to exercise freedom of speech using the means that are legally available (which are plenty.) Really, not being able to use a copyrighted song to make fun of a political figure does not hamper my liberty of doing so. I haven't seen the satire, but from what I can gather, DeVore is/was in the wrong here unless the artistic work was altered so as to make clear it is a derived art clearly distinguishable from the original (with the derived art being legally usable for such a purpose.)
Does the "derivative work" function as a substitute for the original work? If it serves a different function, it should be considered fair use.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
It's better if the Supreme Court gives a new meaning to "satire" and "parody", because now nobody agrees on their definition. I don't know the exact origin of the word "parody" because I don't know greek, but as far as I know the satura was the only truly roman genre of literature (i.e. theatre was a greek invention, borrowed by the romans). It is really hard to define. The adjective "satur" means "full", while the adverb "satis" means "enough" (-->satisfy). Its contents varied, they where something like very short essays or comments. Lucilius wrote a lot, on every conceivable subject. Also, it was written in verse.
So now everyone talks about a "satire" and does not know what it was supposed to mean. I bet these people have never heard of Oratius.
In soviet russia the government regulates the companies.
Use of Don Henley's well-known music implies that he supports the DeVore, which he clearly does not. In that sense, it is defamatory to Don Henley. Also, there argument that "It is parody because Henley is a liberal" is absurd, they seem to be arguing that it would be unlawful to rip off a well known conservative's music, but it is perfectly ok to rip off a well-known liberal?!? This is the same race that saw Carly Fiorina's "Demonic Sheep" ads? I think it will go down in history as the pinnacle of Repugnantcan douchebaggery, an affront to intellectual conservatives everywhere.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Parody and fair use is all well and good as long as it's for entertainment.
Use for political rhetoric is another thing all together.
Just as I believe that entertainers and singers have no business spouting partisan views. My belief is that these entertainers are singing songs or reading scripts. If entertainers wish to speak out using their celebrity, it should be impartial, like poverty, diabetes, hunger, clean environment, stop killing whales.
As to political views, they should be expressed like everyone else, at the ballot box.
Leave the political rhetoric to the politicians, it's all crap anyway, their voting records are the only truth worth monitoring.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
If you watch the video, you will see that it does not walk like a human.
During every moment in his stride, his stance is stable.
The hard part of bipedal robots is make it walk like a human does: the stance of a human halfway through each step is an instable pose.
http://www.stolk.org/tlctc
This is the first I've heard of satire being illegal in any sense of the word. Please forgive my ignorance. What's the difference between this and, say, Vonnegut, Twain, or Swift? Many of the classics are satires. Is it that the people or institutions under attack are still alive, or personally identified? But didn't literary satires do this?
There is no point in concepts like “fair use”, since the base concept that you couldn’t use known information is absurd and physically impossible in the first place. If you know it, you can always and without exception use it. If you don’t you can’t prove it even exists (without revealing it).
It seems that: In western culture the parody is the LAW. ;))
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
That is so true! No conservative would ever stoop so low as to be a lawyer or - God forbid - a Supreme Court justice.
Just tack on a parody of Henley on at the end. Considering his legendary ego and penchant for self-serving aggrandizing, it should be like shooting an overrated fish in a barrel of more talented fish.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Check out this link from the summary. It's not a pretty sight.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
After reading a bit more about this I suprised myself by changing my mind. My first knee-jerk reaction was that the videos were ok because they were parodys/satire.
But basically if this was allowed, you could use any music for any video you make whatsoever, and claim it is a satire/parody. Maybe you are required to insert at least one insult, about a random subject, into the video, so it is a "satire or parody". This would completely defeat copyright and certainly is not a good idea.
However that if Boxer had officially used one of these songs in their own videos (after paying for the rights, as required), somebody parodying the Boxer ad can use a parody version of that same song. I believe this was done by conservatives on some Obama attacks. More to the point here, a joke video about Windows using a Rolling Stones "start it up" parody would be allowed, since that was part of the Windows advertisement, but use of a different Rolling Stones song that Microsoft did not use is not allowed.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because Democrats never get CAUGHT stealing music, doesn't mean they don't steal.
Actually, it's more like: Democrats get whatever they want from their good buddies at the RIAA and get a pass from lefty music artists. The charge never comes up because no lefty musician or music company EVER MAKES IT. (Ya don't eat your own, don't ya know.)
But the moment any Republican uses ANY music by any left-leaning musician, an army of lawyers and Old Media types scramble to find if they "stole" it. That just doesn't happen with Democrats.
Prime example: During the last Presidential election the McCain campaign was accused of "stealing" the song "Barracuda". The problem for the accusers was that the McCain campaign already had a contract with the company that held the rights to that song that allowed them to play it. Yet WEEKS of hay were made from a literal non-story because the original artist didn't like the McCain camp using it, despite them having met the legal requirements for use.
So forgive me if I take your "Republicans steal music" "evidence" with a MOUNTAIN of salt. History has taught me to deeply distrust leftist "news" sources.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
From the article: "DeVore argues that his videos do indeed target Henley, who has long been identified with liberal and Democratic causes, and asserts that the campaign chose to use Henley's songs for precisely that reason."
That's quite a dangerous stretch counselor. If that were so, it would follow that usage of copyrighted works would depend on how much the holder's political leanings coincide with the person being mocked.
Just make everything illegal and be done with it. Stick the whole country in jail. Karaoke: Did you get permission to perform the work publicly? I don't remember ever signing any such contract. Forward a funny email, or one of those "virus" warnings? Sorry, the email is copyrighted material and is not a legal document, so any mention of copying therein does not constitute a contract granting permission to copy. Make a mix tape (oops, CD): jail time. Rip a song onto your MP3 player? Slammertime! Time shift Breaking Bad? No soup for you! Quote a Seinfeld episode...?
Seriously, it is getting far too easy to make a living by suing people than to produce legitimate content in the first place. This applies to copyright laws, patent laws, etc. We're going to go through the whole mess yet again when 3D printers and automated milling machines become more common.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because Democrats never get CAUGHT stealing music, doesn't mean they don't steal.
Well until you have any actual examples of them stealing music rather than vague claims about how they must be, then your claims might actually carry some weight.
Actually, it's more like: Democrats get whatever they want from their good buddies at the RIAA and get a pass from lefty music artists.
Is this the same RIAA that has a well-known Republican staffer/lobbyist as it's chairman and CEO? And the same RIAA who has made numerous donations to Republican senators and representatives for years? Yeah, let's ignore all that and just pretend that only the Democrats are allies of the RIAA.
Music can evoke powerful emotional responses. Politics should not be based on emotion; but facts and intellect. I am infuriated each time I hear some song that I love being used by a scumbag politican. Let them use their 60 second spot to say something. Let's ban images as well - images such as the anti Goldwater ad featuring a nuclear explosion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_(advertisement) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExjDzDsgbww have been far more powerful than anything that the candidates are willing or able to say. Free speech is just that free speech; not free media. Unless and until the rules are changed, any political use of media is clearly a commercial use.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Didn't Obama give sweet appointments to a bunch of RIAA lawyers?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/
That being said, we're veering way off-topic. I maintain my position that both parties usually have dirty hands.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
If you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence. Your lack of evidence does not make a very good case, that's the simple fact that I am pointing out. History has taught me to deeply distrust people who make claims with no evidence.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Although this is a stupid statement, it does illustrate something I find amusing, in a sad sort of way.
Progressives often believe that conservatives, since they have no real substance, operate by appealing to emotion, and so forth. But of course conservatives believe the same thing about progressives. Neither side can understand that the other honestly believes what it is saying. Why is that? Well my stock answer is that people are really, really stupid (which is probably true), but I suspect it has a lot to do with group identity. If I am part of group X, it hardly matters what group Y believes; they're different so they're simply wrong. I figure the world would be a better place if people could realize that, while the other side may be wrong, they're at least as honest as your side (this is a generalization, of course, but it's illustrative). Although humanity would find some way to fuck that up, too.
Assuming the Hugh has this right (and why wouldn't he?), can someone explain to me why Parody is protected fair use and Satire isn't? Isn't that a pretty arbitrary line to draw? (I know, most of the fair use doctrine is arbitrary, but still...)
Thank you to the people who responded. I need no further explanation. I appreciate it, though.
Or is CNN too liberal for you?
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Just because Democrats never get CAUGHT stealing music, doesn't mean they don't steal.
You literally cannot make a case that Democrats steal music without any evidence. As is, your post is nothing but unsubstantiated bullshit. Feel free to believe whatever you want, but don't come here spewing accusations with nothing to back it up.
Uhhh... citation needed?
You're joking, aren't you?
This is Slashdot. We bash Democrats around here. Since when did we need any actual examples or citations?
Just to point out an important correction, since this is about copyright, I can prove no Democrat ever stole music, and for that matter that no Republican stole music either.
You don't STEAL music, you infringe on the copyright. Otherwise, your comment was spot on (and I am a Democrat saying that).
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
What is fair and what the fare is. You can pay for freedom on the installment plan or in one huge balloon payment. Either way, freedom is not free.
I wonder if now you've brought up that video helping defeat Goldwater (an old style conservative Republican), some of the people arguing will now switch sides. ;) Bring up the one with Dukakis (a New England Democrat) and the tank, and those on the other side might switch. ;)
A lot of what I see here are logical arguments specifically crafted to agree with the writer's existing emotional/partisan response.
Hopefully, the court will rule on more neutral grounds.
Generally, you cannot get away with "similarities" that exceed 7 consecutive notes.
So what happens once there are enough published songs that all possible 7-note segments in the scale are used?
Anyone remember the infamous JibJab issue over their use of the tune to "This Land Was Made For You And Me" but replacing the lyrics to poke fun at GWB? JibJab almost lost painfully to the original songwriter's estate after it was determined that their use of the tune was to satirize Bush, rather than to satirize the song itself, meaning JibJab wouldn't be entitled to coverage under satire protections laws that artists like Weird Al Yankovic use regularly in the production of their parodies. Had the song's copyright been properly renewed by the song writer's estate, JibJab would have had to pay out royalties for their use of the tune.
I imagine the same applies here. If you aren't using satire to satirize the song itself for the song's sake, then it's a derivative work that requires the copyright holder to be compensated.
8==8 Bones 8==8
From TFA: "Corynne McSherry, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, explains how fair use works: It lets people use a film clip or a paragraph from an article or a piece of music if they are creating commentary or satire." So what I've gathered, unless an attorney with the EFF is an outright liar, the fact that "a parody comments on the work itself; a satire uses the work to comment on something else" is a useless statement to the context of the Downfall situation, and also to these songs, because satire is still covered by fair use.
This is essentially the same issue Penny Arcade ran into with their infamous American McGee's Strawberry Shortcake comic.
You can parody American McGee's Alice, you can parody Strawberry Shortcake, but you can't parody one by using the other.
The song "Good Morning to All" written by Patty Hill and Mildred J. Hill in 1893. The melody of "Happy Birthday to You" varies from it by splitting one note into two. Yet, both songs are copyrighted. I guess a single note is enough for it to be considered an original work ...
I always like it when I see thanks extended to answers of inquiries on slashdot. It reaffirms my belief that this site is not entirely made up of elitist, tech-savvy trolls that like to kick and scream as much as every other immature wank on the internet. Well done, sir.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Weeks of hay? I hadn't even heard of this until now, and I was paying some attention to the 2008 campaigns.
Further, now that I look it up, it doesn't seem to be the case that anyone was saying the McCain campaign stole the song, or even used it illegally; the hay was made over the fact that the artists just didn't agree with his political views, and as such requested that he not use it. Due to our wonderful copyright system, the people who created the song no longer had any sort of control over the actual usage of the song, and as such their request was ignored by the McCain campaign.
Indeed, as far as I can tell none of those "leftist 'news' sources" said or even implied that the McCain campaign used Barracuda illegally; all they cared about was that the band that created that song did not wish for it to be used in that way.
And yet despite this, you somehow managed to completely avoid addressing the three instances of potential Republican music-stealing that the GP actually brought up.
Judging from your signature, this seems to be a consistent pathology in your thinking.
No really!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Well, not only is that the actual case at hand: "Henley, who has long been identified with liberal and Democratic causes," — says the summary.
Further, at least two out of the three links, with which you began this very conversation, claim the same thing in the very titles (emphasis mine):
So, now that've agreed, that Republicans are Ok (at least morally) in mocking their opponents using the opponents' supporters art, let's move on to the more generic question of political speech vs. copyrights.
The author of the (in)famous "Hope" poster stole a photograph of a completely neutral party for his poster... But because it was for political speech, I think, he shouldn't suffer, although you would say, he should...
Political Free Speech needn't endanger copyright. And that's what I'm talking about. We already distinguish different kinds of speech — advertisers, for example, are very limited in what they can say, compared to politicians — and, I think, political speech could include anything, be it copyrighted works or incitement to violence.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1631698&cid=32039386