Slashdot Mirror
Gritty 'Power Rangers' Short Is Not Fair Use
"Power/Rangers", the 11-minute short directed by music video veteran Joseph Kahn, is still available on Youtube, where it was posted by the film's producer, Adi Shankar. Rival video site Vimeo removed the short film after receiving a copyright complaint from Haim Saban, the creator of the U.S. series, for using the characters without his permission.
The movie is OK. I think the people gushing about how amazing it is are mentally comparing it to the awful 1995 "Power Rangers" movie or the bland cartoon. But how are the director and his defenders arguing that the movie isn't a copyright violation?
The director said in one of a series of tweets: "Every image in POWER/RANGERS is original footage. Nothing was pre-existing. There is no copyrighted footage in the short." True, but this ignores the fact that characters themselves can be protected by copyright. Fan fiction sites can exist legally only to the extent that the character copyright owner grants permission (J.K. Rowling has explicitly given permission for the Harry Potter characters to be used in fan fiction; Anne Rice specifically prohibits fan fiction featuring her characters). Most obviously, when a studio like Warner Brothers produces their own gritty reboot of a character, they have to pay fees to the owner of that character, even if every frame of their movie is entirely the studio's own work. Why on Earth would the studio pay those fees, if they didn't have to?
The director also tweeted, "I am not making any money on it and I refuse to accept any from anyone." Well, everyone ought to know by now that that argument isn't going to fly if you put a copy of The Avengers on your personal home page. It's not obvious why that defense should work any better if you've violated someone's copyright by using their characters without permission, instead of just copying their movie.
Kahn also tweeted that the short film was not a copyright violation because it was "satire," and his supporters agreed, calling the film a "parody." (Copyright law holds that you can satirize or parody someone else's work without their permission; thus Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer do not have to pay licensing fees for the movies that they rip off in their awful "parodies.") But no English speaker would use the word "satire" or "parody" to describe Kahn's movie, precisely because of the qualities that people loved about it (dark, violent, almost completely humorless). Most tellingly, as far as I can tell nobody did call it a satire or parody until that started being raised as a defense against copyright claims -- they called it a dark, gritty remake or re-imagining, because that's what it was, and calling it a "satire" sounds jarringly wrong unless you're in on the wink-wink pseudo-legal strategy.
Kahn also invoked "fair use" multiple times, but that's just begging the question: since "fair use" is a catch-all for several scenarios in which you can legally use copyrighted content without the owner's permission (parody/satire, brief excerpt for the purpose of commentary/criticism, etc.), which defense applies here? One of the criteria for "fair use" is how much of the original work you re-used -- if your online review of The Dark Knight links to a 10-second clip that you posted to show that the fight scenes are kick-ass, that might be OK, but a 30-minute excerpt would not be. But if we apply that logic to the use of a copyrighted character, in a story you're either using someone else's copyrighted character, or you're not. Given that characters are protected by copyright at all, it doesn't make much sense to talk about "using 0.5% of a character", the way that a 30-second clip would constitute only 0.5% of a 100-minute movie. It certainly wouldn't make sense in the case of Kahn's remake, where the copyrighted Power Rangers characters are onscreen in every single scene.
The director's defenders rightly pointed out the absurdity of Vimeo removing the short film just hours after giving it a "Staff Pick" award, but the real absurdity runs in the opposite direction -- how did Vimeo's staff give an award to the film that they should have known was a knockoff? Presumably they had heard of the Power Rangers and knew that the movie was using the characters without permission.
Moreover, there's not just a legal argument against an unauthorized "gritty reboot" of the Power Rangers, there's a moral one as well. The short film shows that Joseph Kahn is a technically competent director -- but there are many, many competent directors out there, making gritty sci-fi films of short and feature length, all competing for people's attention. By using the "Power Rangers" name for his piece, Kahn got way more views than he would have gotten if he had released it as "just another dark sci-fi short film." And despite his protestations that he's not making money from the film, it's bringing him exposure and connections which are almost certainly monetizable somewhere down the road, opportunities which come at the expense of other similarly talented directors. Does that seem fair?
Remember, we welcome reader-submitted essays and opinion pieces, not just news snippets, through the Slashdot submissions form .
And I thought yesterday's torrent of appeals for more contributions was just a lame trolling! It worked!
Maybe because it's a parody? I've not watched this movie and don't intent to, but a parody is allowed to use however much of the original work it wants to.
I see nothing wrong with it, as long as it is not pretending to be an official power rangers movie. People base stories on other stories all the time.
They should be in the public domain anyway.
--AC
I thought that's what journals are for? For the stuff nobody wants to read, but the author feels good to get it off her chest.
The stupid idea of "intellectual property" (which of course is neither) muddles the lines between copyright and trademark.
As I understand what's being violated is mainly trademark - and not only that of Saban but of Toei as well, because the basic design elements (and even the use of "Ranger") actually belong to Toei rather than Saban, and Saban is just using them under license.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
Is it fair use? Certainly not, but Saban eventually reversed course and gave permission for the thing to exist. So now it's back up.
"Most stories on Slashdot are less than 120 words; brevity is the soul of wit." --Slashdot submission page.
Power Rangers has always been a live action TV show.
I would. Parody/satire humor. A dark, gritty send-up of ridiculous subject matter is every bit as much a satire as the inverse would be.
The original Power Rangers is campy and laughable. Showing gritty topics in a saccharine sweet, good guys always triumphant without any real struggle or doubt way that the children's shows often do is worth satirizing.
From Webster:
Slashdot: News from Reddit, Bennett's Blog.
That's what makes it satire. The video itself was not funny, but the concept was hilarious. My jaw was on the floor when I watched this.
It would not have been funny or satire if it was not about the Power Rangers. I only watched half of the short before I ran out of attention but I agree, this was worthy of a "Staff Pick"
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
Copyright only applies if the creator can claim that elements of the Power Rangers universe are copyrighted. Copyright has generally held to cover a specific expression, not elements of the universe. That said, many creators have won efforts to claim use of certain elements are infringing (e.g., Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc.).
The greatest claim here, however, would be trademarked images. Fair use doesn't apply to trademark--although some of the arguments regarding the use of a trademark without permission are the same as those in fair use.
The director's defenders rightly pointed out the absurdity of Vimeo removing the short film just hours after giving it a "Staff Pick" award, but the real absurdity runs in the opposite direction -- how did Vimeo's staff give an award to the film that they should have known was a knockoff? Presumably they had heard of the Power Rangers and knew that the movie was using the characters without permission.
Because knockoff videos happen every day and usually the copyright holder doesn't care. See "Mario Warfare", or any other group of people having fun with cosplay. The same thing goes with fan art.
It is protected by copyright, and calling it satire is obviously bullshit.
Usually companies let fan-works slide, and as long as your fan-film or fan-fiction or geeky video is just done for fun, why shouldn't the company allow it? It's just building good will and it's a super-fan only thing that doesn't really change what most people think of the brand. They still have legal rights to disallow it, but they choose not to.
This video, with recognizable stars and lots of money put into it and professional purposes (it seems to be a kind of work to put on the director's resume) went too far. I'm not at all surprised they aren't happy with it, and legally and ethically they have every right to get it off of the youtubes.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
What is Parody if not to amuse? And what is amusement but entertainment? To say the only form of parody is the sort we see on Saturday Night Live would be utterly limiting and disingenuous at best. This is clearly a piece of "Fan Fiction" and should by all intents and purposes be covered by fair use since it is not a commercial work, and was created to amuse fellow fans of the Power Rangers. Perhaps instead of calling their lawyers, the copyright holders should have called the creator of this piece to see about putting together a deal to bring this to SyFy as a Galactica style reboot. But hey -- they're assholes in suits and more about "protecting" the rights they've secure from others than "creating" anything new with those rights.
Just because you don't understand the word "parody" doesn't mean it isn't one.
Characters can not be copyrighted. Creative works with those characters can be copyrighted. i am not a lawyer.
Because they didn't have a leg to stand on for how they went about it.
You can copyright a character after a fashion, but you can only trademark the look of the Rangers themselves- that would be trade dress, and you can ONLY Trademark it. Sorry, Copyright doesn't work that way. Now, they might've went after them over Trademark- but in the end, they'd have been in trouble. DMCA takedowns only cover Copyright , not trademark. The takedown wasn't legit. Now Trademark is a concern, but it appears that Saban was good about this and allowed them this all the same.
Well, everyone ought to know by now that that argument isn't going to fly if you put a copy of The Avengers on your personal home page. It's not obvious why that defense should work any better if you've violated someone's copyright by using their characters without permission, instead of just copying their movie.
It should be obvious that there is a difference. Putting The Avengers on your site for people to freely download is the same as distributing copies of a work without permission, which can result in a significant loss of income to the copyright holder. Copying the names of characters and their spirit (well, here even that is a bit of a stretch) does not result in loss of potential income. If damages are considered, the latter can be shown to have significantly less, or no, actual damages.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
> Is it fair use? Certainly not
Yes it is. The language is the issue, not the content. For a specific definition of satire, this is Fair Use. That's a defense in US court(s). It's been quite successful, in the past.
wouldn't exist if it weren't for copyright or "IP" violation.
Traditional music, folk music, jazz, blues. And what about the second and subsequent painter working in any characterizable style/genre.
Greed vs Art is about what it amounts to.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
No, it's not a trademark issue unless you attempted to sell merchandising. You need to be engaged in a trade in order to violate a trademark. Then, the marks which are owned by original Power Rangers must only not be confusingly similar to be unprotected.
Mickey Mouse the character is copyrighted and you cannot market Mickey Mouse cartoons or goods without Disney's say-so. This is entirely because of copyright. They may also have trademarks that mean you can't make a cartoon and call it Mickey Mouse, even if the appearance of the cartoon is dissimilar enough to not be a copy or confusingly similar. The name is also trademarked. Those trademarks only stay good for Disney if they are renewed and defended. They are not the only protection around the Mickey Mouse brand, though.
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
"...comparing it to the awful 1995 "Power Rangers" movie or the bland cartoon."
The series was not a cartoon by any definition. I'm pretty sure Bennett has never watched it.
The question of what is parody / satire cannot be easy to answer. I would suggest a simple test: "Are the copyright owners likely to produce a similar work?" alongside the Trademark question ("Are people confused?")
What I recall of the Power Rangers is cheezy, plasticy schlock aimed at kids. This seems very different, so may qualify as parody/satire.
Parody of Power Rangers. No one is mistaking this for an actual official Power Rangers movie. (Compare with Hustler v. Falwell.) The difference in fan fiction is that when looking at an excerpt of text, there is the potential that a reader might mistake a piece with officially sanctioned/published material. Non-commercial work faces a lower bar for being judged as fair use. (Thus firms are more likely to obtain permission/licensing when making a product or film.)
Satire of grimdark and remakes/reboots. "In the grim future of Hello Kitty, there is only war". http://onastick.net/sitz/image...
The video was interesting in spots; this article wasn't.
It's like he's a zombie. Never dies. Keeps coming back for more and more and more of our braaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaains!
It was clearly not considered fair use by Saban when they initially requested and got takedowns from both sites. Saban PR changed their mind after the backlash of negative social media reaction, realizing this was the best marketing for Power Rangers merch in years.
So, yes, you're right, but this was already clear.
"Most obviously, when a studio like Warner Brothers produces their own gritty reboot of a character, they have to pay fees to the owner of that character, even if every frame of their movie is entirely the studio's own work. Why on Earth would the studio pay those fees, if they didn't have to?"
Because they're making it for-profit, I would imagine, whereas I'm imagining this was a fan project funded by the fans? No money is exchanging hands, I would assume, unless you're counting the director/producers of the video paying the actors/actresses and crew for their work.
If there is no original footage, there can be no copyright violation on the original works.
Fan-fiction, whether the author allows it or not, is not part of the original author's copyright. The author has legally no say in what other people can and cannot write (and any legal decision that says they do is unconstitutional).
A fictional character can be copyrighted only if they are very well-defined (usually written) and non-generic, it can also be trademarked but that does not exempt them from parody and a whole other litany of copyright/trademark exceptions also known as fair use. A "power-ranger-like" character is fairly generic (costumed (teenage) super-hero?).
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
but the real absurdity runs in the opposite direction -- how did Vimeo's staff give an award to the film that they should have known was a knockoff?
Probably because it's so different, it doesn't feel like anything even semi-official. At it's core, the idea behind copyright is that if a consumer is faced with a choice between content from the creator, or some knock off content from somebody who's standing on the shoulders of the creator, and to consumer picks the knock off, it hurts the original creator. This 'movie' is short enough, and despairingly different enough from the original, anyone looking to spend money on Power Rangers style entertainment, is not going to choose consuming this short film.
Haim Saban's "creation" consists of dubbed versions of the characters from Super Sentai, which you can see on the Wiki page for one installment, Kagaku Sentai Dynaman - scroll down.
As a derivative work, Saban doesn't own squat, and ownership, if there is any, probably belongs to Toei Company. However, as the same characters have appeared in many works *as different characters*, the argument might also be made that they are generic.
So this is basically yet another example of someone claiming ownership of something they never owned, which is precisely why copyright is such a farce in general.
Props to Bennett Haselton on correct usage of the phrase "begging the question". That is rare.
Mostly correct. To claim trademark infringement, you and the infringer must be participating in the same market that your trademark covers. However, that doesn't change the fact that this isn't a copyright issue. Copyright covers the specific expression, not marks, characters or ideas.
Copyright law was created to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", not to grand a monopoly right for the creator. The limited monopoly right is just the means to promote art, not the desired outcome. The current law of 150+ years (or is it now 300 years?) is absolutely not proportional. With better technology the copyright terms should be shortened and not extended. With our current digital technology, the term should be 5 years or even shorter. Almost everything today should be fair use, so that the authors finally create new characters and new stories, instead to reboot and retell the same stories over and over again.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
A most epic troll by BH. Well played, mate.
It might be a parody because I've actually found this post close to readable!
YouTube took it down, and put it back up once the director, and Saban came to an agreement. What they wanted was a clear indication that Saban had nothing to do with it, and to reduce the chance that children mistake it for their kid friendly version. The video is clearly parody, and mocks the premise of recruiting child warrior a la Africa Child Soldiers. Clearly the author of the summary is under the mistaken belief that Parody must be funny Ha Ha, and probably thinks Black Comedy/Dark Comedy has something to do with race.
With the disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer, this seems like fair use. In the US there are four major prongs to evaluate fair use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use. The first is purpose, which as Wikipedia summarizes is "The first factor is regarding whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit. " Since there's no profit here, this does well on the first prong. The second prong isn't very relevant here- it just means that because this is a fictional work, the standard is slightly stricter. The third prong looks at the amount of the original material that has been used. Since only a few names, some colors and certain aspects of costumes were used, the amount used is very small. The fourth factor is whether the material dilutes or competes commercially with the original source material. No one is going to go and not by Power Rangers material or not watch the original because of this. There's clearly no competition or loss of profit to the actual franchise. Overall, seems like a clearcut case of fair use even before we talk about the parody defense.
That's not 100% correct either, but I like your middle-ground better than anyone else I've seen posting on this thread.
Characters can be covered by copyright. It is not established that these characters are covered by copyright, and characters are not always automatically covered by copyright, but when they are sufficiently developed, and if the courts decide to rule in your favor, characters in and of themselves can be protected by copyright.
Circuit courts have ruled both ways.
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
Isn't the Power Rangers just a rip-off of a Japanese show, anyway?
Parody is protected; satire is not. Parody uses the objects of an artistic creation to criticize, lampoon, or make fun of the original creation. Satire uses the objects of one artistic creation to criticize, lampoon, or make fun of other creations. Using A to mock A is fair game in copyright law. Using A to mock B is seen as a violation of the copyright holder of A's rights.
As an example: Demolition Man used commercial jingles and Taco Bell to satirize modern American life and where it was headed, but they weren't really holding up the Oscar-Meyer Company or Taco Bell up for ridicule. The laughs were aimed elsewhere. As a result, they had to get permission from the Oscar-Meyer company to use the Oscar-Meyer wiener jingle, and permission from Taco Bell to use the Taco Bell logo. That's satire.
The Power Rangers fan film is pretty much straight-up parody. They're not scoring points about anything outside the Power Rangers franchise: they're just holding it up for brutal mocking. That's parody, and that means the people who made it were A-OK.
http://comicbook.com/2015/02/28/controversial-power-rangers-short-film-now-back-on-youtube-and-v/
"Power/Rangers producer Adi Shankar and Saban Entertainment have worked out their differences and come to an agreement that allowed the fan film to return online. Part of the deal is that an age restriction appears on the YouTube video, and there is also a new disclaimer on the NSFW vimeo version."
It appears as if they've managed to work things out.
"Intellectual Property" does not muddle the lines between copyright and trademark, it is a catch all term that includes the two legal concept along with others. Individual cases still need to reference the actual legal frameworks in question.
The poster has no clue about how fair use works. There are four factors that get considered in deciding whether something is fair use:
1. Is it noncommercial? Yes it is.
2. Is it transformative? That is, does it use the original work as raw material to create something new, rather than just copying it for the sake of copying it? Yes it is.
3. Does it compete with the original work in the marketplace? It would be pretty hard to claim that.
4. How much of the original work does it copy? In this case, very little. Just the appearance of the characters. All the footage is original.
So it scores highly on all four criteria. This is absolutely fair use.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
These are the same power ranger lawyers who drove Chroma Squad / indie sentai studio into the ground and that didn't even use the brand. Difficult to sympathize with aggressive lawyering against fan communities. Without the fans they would have nothing to protect anyway..
Not even bothering to read the whole article, let alone the comments. Until a court decides whether the work is or is not in the fair-use domain, all else is speculation and hot air.
We are the 198 proof..
As in the original movies and cartoons that Power Rangers ripped off and spliced in "local content" to appear to be "original".
There is no stealing from crooks.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I don't feel like I've read a news article. I feel like I've read some undergrad's persuasive argument essay on why this movie isn't covered by copyright. What happened to giving readers objective facts about a newsworthy scenario, and allowing them to make their own judgements and come to their own conclusions? Hell, this isn't even an example of giving all the facts and then making the decision for us: the article spends so much time railing against the movie being protected from copyright that I don't feel as though I have a clear picture of what's actually going on. What an awful goddamn article, why was it put up here?
By virtue of the fact that anti-humor is one of my favorite kinds of humor - by taking a super-cheesy show and *removing* all the cheese, making it dark as frack, that sounds like a brilliant parody of the original. (Obviously, I am not a lawyer, but I do want to watch this now, and I hated Power Rangers as a kid (and now.))
It might be a parody because I've actually found this post close to readable!
And not a single mention of slide out keyboards or the vast marketing prowess of Mechanical Turk. It's as if there isn't any bennett hasselton in there at all.
There is no comparison to someone creating an original work that contains characters from someone else's work and taking someone else's work and posting it up on your site.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
The go-to example of a work of satire is 'A Modest Proposal', in which the author suggests solving the Irish Potato Famine (in which people were starving to death by the hundreds) by *eating their children*. Satire and 'funny' may overlap from time to time, but they certainly aren't synonyms.
There's no rational way this *doesn't* qualify as satire.
in this case, how could anyone argue the short film doesn't violate the rights of the franchise creator
Because I don't believe that content creators should have rights that violate anybody else's rights to do whatever they want with the content.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
While this kind of content might be copyright infringing, in Japan there are big and well-known events where fan fiction works are sold. Companies turn a blind eye to them.
Many notable professional artists also started their carreers by doing these works, and some even still do.
The popularity that some franchises achieved would have been certainly impossible without derivate works. Publishers there seem to understand this.
look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The first factor is regarding whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit. To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. A key consideration is the extent to which the use is interpreted as transformative, as opposed to merely derivative.
This isn't passing itself off as the very sought-after Power Rangers short movie everyone's dying to buy; this is a new work that takes the premise of an old work and does something new, with criticism about the whole "child soldier" angle.
Totally fair use.
You can't take the sky from me...
Intellectual property is very valuable to those rare few people that actually have original thoughts and ideas. Those that don't never will see the value in it.
It's a pity that Saban decided to try and oppose Joseph Kahn and his work on this, instead of following New Line Cinema's lead. When Kevin Tancharoen made Mortal Kombat: Rebirth, New Line embraced his work, and it led to Mortal Kombat: Legacy.
From the summary: "How could anyone argue the short film doesn't violate the rights of the franchise creator?"
How about the fact that the source material is over 20 years old. The concept that anyone should have 'rights' to it anymore, enforced by the public for their benefit, is horseshit. Copyright lengths are unreasonably long. The franchise creator should instead have to argue why his monopoly on an abstract concept should last so long, and why adults today can't expand upon ideas from their childhood.
....when a studio like Warner Brothers produces their own gritty reboot of a character,
Batman is the story of a boy who witnessed his parent's murders and then decided to dress up like a bat in order to punish criminals. Other than the 60s live action TV show and the 80s Superfriends cartoon when wasn't Batman gritty? Have you read The Dark Knight Returns? Or The Killing Joke? Or the original Detective Comics stories? Even Burton had Batman kill at least a dozen henchman in 1989. FFS Bats was blowing guys away with a pistol in 1939. Are you aware of the Batman mythos at all? Who submitted this? Oh.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Far too often I've been seeing asinine articles written about arbitrary asides and I've come to the conclusion that editors only post these meaningless, incomprehensible, rants because of the amount of discussion (in this case, complaints) they generate.
No one with half a brain would think these ideas are sound. In fact, they read like a Buzzfeed article. 5 insane tricks to troll SlashDot! 1 way to make your audience hate you (and comment more!).
Can anyone think of a reason why these tirades get posted, other than to generate false outrage?
The corner of a round room
What I truly don't understand is why use the Power Rangers at all? The film is dark (I watched ~five minutes), also sound is irritatingly loud (ooh, artsy!), and is little more than a job interview. Unfortunately that business doesn't like IP infringement, to the extent of redefining it at every turn.
It would have been more interesting as a proper film. The main premise is solid; using children as weapons/solders to fight a war - galactic invaders or no. But pinching the Power Rangers just cheapens it. Maybe they grew up loving the Pink Power Ranger. Amy Jo Johnson is a pretty sweet love interest after all. What it allows is a short film that doesn't stand on it's own. The viewer must know something about the Power Rangers, and as I don't know much, I stopped watching. I don't care about those characters. Well, beside Amy Jo.
It is a borderline case of IP infringement. It might well take a court to settle it. For me, with the passion and expertise shown it seems a waste of energy to use the Power Ranger characters and not invent something equally or more interesting for the film. Who knows, maybe they couldn't. Fixated brains of youth.
lol imaginary property.
Given that the video in question is a work of fan fiction, the following seems relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... http://www.copyright.gov/title...
Bennett Haselton doesn't seem to know how Fair Use works, and is dangerously and irresponsibly mischaracterizing it as something he himself can assess and negate/affirm. The non-commercial and transformative aspects of the Power Rangers video in question might in fact hold up in court; he doesn't know otherwise, and to insist that he does is legally misguided.
A: the video gives Google an excuse for people to identify themselves, by mandating that they login. Let the tracking ensue!
Bennett Haselton shut up.
"Steamboat Willy" was a shitty cartoon anyway.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
And how can you claim that the franchise owner gets the power to decide what can be done with the work of someone else completely?
Really, what effort did the franchise owner put forward. Hell, what did they put forward to the work done on their behalf? None.
Why should the franchise owner get to say what is allowed as fan-fic, when they did none of the work to create the fan-fic? And don't give me "because the law says so", because laws change, and they change because people ask "Why should that be the law?", not because it's the law, but people decide what the law should be.
True, but Mickey Mouse is in every market. Tshirts? Hats? Lunchboxes? Mickey. Watches? Curtains? Bes sheets? Mickey. Breakfast cereals? Pastas? Clock radios? Mickey.
If you can find a market in which there's no Mickey Mouse licensed good, then there's a damn good chance they'd sue you instead on diminishing their image through an implied endorsement of your Mickey Mouse submachine gun.
This! Well, very close. AC gets this concept, but for the uninitiated:
You can copyright Batman the comic book drawing; you can copyright photos, images, scripts, etc. from Batman the movie; and you can copyright the *specific* character of Batman/Bruce Wayne, whose billionaire parents were shot in front of him on the streets of Gotham, who had a father-figure butler named Alfred, etc etc. You can trademark the logo on the Batsuit, and possibly even the whole suit if it's distinctive enough.
BUT you cannot copyright stock characters or concepts like "rich vigilante dons black suit and cape to fight crime" or "dapper British spy beds femmes fatales and saves the world." And you cannot copyright costumes (clothing is functional in the US, unless it's so completely unwearable that its only function could be as art). Which is a great reason to put trademarkable things like a logo and unique-looking suit on a character you want to protect.
Let's apply these to this case. What makes a Power Ranger a Power Ranger?
The Visuals:
--"Space-looking" spandex jumpsuits suits? Costumes are not copyrightable, possibly trademarkable.
--There are five different colors and white diamonds on their chests? Concepts are not copyrightable. A distinctive 5-color logo incorporating the rangers or some visual element like white diamonds could be trademarked, although the actual logos are all a variation on "lightning-y" words.
The Name:
--"Power Rangers" and "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers" are certainly protectable (and protected) under trademark. They are too short and functional to be protected under copyright.
The Characters:
--Desire to fight various space assholes who want to wreak nonspecific space evil? Sounds pretty generic...
--Five teenagers fighting together? And they sometimes combine into one big ass robot? That's not even unique amongst futuristic crime-fighting robo-tweens in children's television, let alone all of fiction.
--They.... are one dimensional do-gooders who are so devoid of individual characteristics as to be interchangeable and known entirely by suit color, race, and gender? Now you're getting it! These "characters" are stock at best, meaning they are not protectable under copyright. The individual kids that donned the suits apparently had some half-assed backstories, but a) these too are stock and b) I don't believe the director referenced anything of the sort.
Nothing posted to
Amazing how there are still people that don't get the joke of this. It's not a parody of the Power Rangers, it's a parody of how Hollywood is addicted to gritty reboots. Also, the film is back online because a deal was cut with Saban who hopefully will see the interest and will make a full movie.
Whether this is authorized or not, I want to puke at yet ANOTHER idiot sucking all the joy out of an innocent and light-hearted cultural staple because 13 year old boys and basement dwelling troglodytes think that everything is better if it's "darker" and "grittier."
I don't want to see a Superman film that makes me want to kill myself.
I don't want to see a rageful, murderous Spock.
I don't want to see a Transformers movie that is a pastiche of scatological jokes and an ad for the US army.
And I CERTAINLY don't want to see the FREAKING POWER RANGERS SHOOTING A GUY THROUGH THE FREAKING HEAD!
What's next? My Little Pony breaks a leg at the track and gets shot? The Smurfs gang rape Smurfette? The Thundercats get spayed? The Get Along Gang vs.the Crips?
This seems to wreck the squeaky clean image of the Power Rangers property, I seriously doubt it will help them get a reboot as a kid's show when this guy is associating the property with gore, drugs and sex. Watching it, it seems less a satire or parody, and more what he wanted the Power Rangers to become, a gritty reboot that's more Dark Knight or Watchmen than Saturday morning cartoon.
This whole copyright stuff is dumb as shit. Who cares if he gets connections over this? He isn't making money NOW. That's what's important. This whole , x person lost y money in the future is so full of shit it's unbelievable people even believe in it. The fact of the matter is that he did nothing morally wrong. He is within laws, and only a fool with a bias would see otherwise.
I personally believe the entire copyright system should be completely re-worked to favor the public more than the industry. Considering everyone and their mother pumps content out on a yearly basis and sometimes bi-yearly, it should be revoked after 3 years of usage and become public domain. Not some intangible thing that lazy asses can use to continue funding their lifestyles.
The characters in his film may be copyrighted, but the people I saw acting these characters out were not. So in essence, he didn't truly commit copy-right infringement. Because when I think of the pink power rangers, I think of these guys:
"http://www.dramafever.com/news/11-things-you-never-knew-about-mighty-morphin-power-rangers/"
So in essence, the characters that the company has copyrighted should also include the actors to their character's appearance and if someone has another Kimberly that looks completely different... Couldn't one just claim it's a different character with the same name?
And if this sounds ludicrous to you, it's because you don't understand the importance of the stance one takes when they're against copyrights. Same thing applies on the other side as well.
All I know is that a group of people got together and made an awesome short. Some company is getting their panties in a twist over it even though no body involved actually made money off of it. This is a power tripping issue. It's nothing more.
You clearly have no idea how these things work - you don't even know enough to be dangerous, you're a toddler repeating words you don't understand.
Is it fair use? Certainly not, but Saban eventually reversed course and gave permission for the thing to exist. So now it's back up.
Really? They did? Then they're utterly mad, because Power Rangers is a brand still actively sold to kids. To have a video online using the Power Rangers name full of words like "motherfucker" and "cunt" has the potential to cause serious damage to their brand.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
True, but this ignores the fact that characters themselves can be protected by copyright.
They can be, but there are limits. The key is how well-defined the character is. Also, bear in mind that really the character is not protected by copyright per se -- the character is just a part of a greater work, which is protected by copyright. Whenever a work which establishes some trait of a character falls into the public domain, so too does that part of the character. Unauthorized uses of the character are really unauthorized uses of the work, which is what can give rise to infringement. A character cannot be copyrighted separately from the work in which he appears, however.
Fan fiction sites can exist legally only to the extent that the character copyright owner grants permission
Or to the extent that the work is not protected, either because it is in the public domain, or because some exception to copyright law applies.
Why on Earth would the studio pay those fees, if they didn't have to?
Clarity; To avoid paying greater fees for litigation down the road, even if they were confident that they would win; As a favor wrapped in a plausible excuse; For good PR. There are good reasons to do so, is the point.
Copyright law holds that you can satirize or parody someone else's work without their permission; thus Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer do not have to pay licensing fees for the movies that they rip off in their awful "parodies."
No it doesn't. Copyright law in the US states that if a copyright is prima facie infringed, but constitutes fair use, then there is no infringement. Parodies and satires -- and for that matter, literally any other sort of use -- can potentially be fair uses, but are not necessarily fair uses. Certainly there have been both parodies and satires which were not fair uses.
But no English speaker would use the word "satire" or "parody" to describe Kahn's movie, precisely because of the qualities that people loved about it (dark, violent, almost completely humorless).
It can easily be seen as a satire. Whether it's a parody is a slightly more difficult question. The legal distinction, for those unfamiliar with this, is that a parody somehow makes fun of the work being used; a satire makes fun of something else, but uses the work to do so. Making fun of the trend of 'gritty reboots' in cinema by using the Power Rangers is certainly satire -- it makes fun of other gritty reboot films and shows. I'd have to have seen it, and know something about the regular Power Rangers to have an opinion as to whether it's a parody, and I frankly don't care enough to bother.
The question of whether the filmmakers meant it as a satire at the time that they made it and released it, and whether that matters, is certainly an interesting one. I can't think of caselaw that indicates that the timing matters or not, but please feel free to cite some.
since "fair use" is a catch-all for several scenarios in which you can legally use copyrighted content without the owner's permission (parody/satire, brief excerpt for the purpose of commentary/criticism, etc.), which defense applies here?
This is an incorrect view of fair use.
Fair use applies to any sort of use of a copyrighted work, which but for fair use would be infringing, and which is fair. I know this sounds like a tautology, but there it is. There is a four-factor test as to whether a use is fair or not, which we'll get into shortly. That's really what matters. True, there is a list of examples in the statute, but it's really meaningless: It's not an exhaustive list of all types of fair use, and the types of uses listed are not necessarily fair. While it was meant to provide guidance, the list of uses has turned out to only cause serious confusion. I strongly encourage you to ignore it completely.
One of
-- 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.
the first few lines managed to draw me in, i got a bit further and realised it was starting to look like a whole article rather than a summary. by the time i realised who had written this shit it was too late :( i've ingested nearly half of this shite. i'll see you in court bennett, muthafucker gon' pay my bills, making me all brain disabled n shit.
anyone replying anything other than 'oh fuck, it's that cunt again' is just feeding this beast.
This - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... is 10 years older than power rangers. The "gritty" film could just rename it after this and avoid the legal hassle from the guys running the old show.
I think congratulations are in order for Bennett Haselton. This is the first time he's written anything where people have made an attempt to reply on topic.
It's still a worthless load of drivel but there's actual discussion happening. I will put this down to an accident or Slashdot users not RTFS like usual. But to restore balance to the world: Fuck Bennett Haselton, this is not your personal blog.
I haven't seen it, but you should leave the lawyering to the lawyers. You can make cogent legal arguments on both sides of this case.
While we are on the subject, Bennett just invalidated the Air Pirates decision which extended copyright to a ridiculous extent.
When the Supreme Court disagrees with you, you are factually incorrect. I guess this disposes of the inevitable "Was there anything factually incorrect?" post.
You're welcome, Bennett, for us doing your third year law student homework for you.
The creator or "owner" of PR, that in fact would go to Toei, so if they don't have a problem with it, then Saban has no say in the matter!
You do know that Power Rangers has been based off of -- and uses footage from -- the Super Sentai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Sentai) series that started in 1975 by Toei, for example '93's PR is based on '92's "Kyry Sentai Zyuranger".
Michael
http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163
I would only want to hear from a copyright lawyer on the issue. One thing that's undeniably true, the internet is filled with amateur videos by Star Trek and superhero fans, many of them quite authentic in terms of characters, costumes, etc. The unwritten rule for years has been that as long as the creators don't profit from it, no one will object. I don't know if there's legal precedence or not, but that's how it's been. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Satire/Parody Comedy
Who said Satire or Parody must be funny? Where is that written? Where is that taught?
Comedy Satire/Parody is the usual result. But it's not a requirement.
This should be obvious... and it doesn't surprise me that Vimeo blinked first. They are pretty gutless.
If the creators of the parody/re-imagined video can be sued or have legal force used against them, then shows like SNL are also a target. Laws protect this sort of thing. It sounds like the "creator" is pretty butt hurt because they made is so much cooler than it's 90s counterpart. The author of this post seems pretty biased. The show's "creator" (if you can even call it that, because Power Rangers was ripped off from multiple foreign sources before it ever hit the states) should embrace this sort of thing. They just gave Power Rangers a whole lot of love where it had none. Use this free press and popularity to your own benefit. Instead, you look like an ass for trying to force take downs and no one will want to see whatever crap Power Rangers series or movie you come out with next.
geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
The title of this post should changed from "Gritty 'Power Rangers' Short Is Not Fair Use" because there is no ruling to qualify the parody/re-imagining/whatever as not being fair use. For those who dont real the entire article or are just skimming headlines, this is very misleading. It seems there is more support/evidence of it actually being fair use than not. The title should read something more like "Gritty 'Power Rangers' Short May Not Be Fair Use".
geek n performer who performs morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken
Whatever happened to the "copyright applies to expression, not idea" mantra? Obviously "the characters" are closer to the idea, not an implementation, so shouldn't be copyrightable as such. Only a specific expression - exact same face, voice, clothing, recognizable unique behavior - can be reasonably copyrighted. If the characters were reworked enough in their expression, they are original even if they have the same names and "intend" to portray the same entities.
I can't comment on US copyright law, but in Australia another required criteria for breach is that it is financially prejudicial to the copyright owner.
What the point of posting your inane judgments about the issue? This sort of thing is decided by judges and, despite the sad state of the American judicial system, no one in their right mind would mistake you for one, Bennett. Your opinion changes nothing, influences no one and fails even the lowest standards of analysis.
Other than that, your post was great.
As has been pointed out, satire needs not be humorous. Swift's modest proposal is equally dark and straight faced, yet still not only earns it's title of satire, but defines an entire class of satire in the modern mind.
So, let's look at some elements of the video which may support the claim of satire.
Satire is defined on wikipedia as follows:
Satire is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government or society itself, into improvement.[1] Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.
Now, the power rangers franchise is a highly formulaic light youth action fantasy. In it, a group of children are recruited to fight in a war in which they do not seem to be a direct party. The moral issues of recruiting child warriors, the long term effects on the combatants, reintegration into society, and just war theory as a whole are largely ignored.
These same issues are the key motifs explored in the short film.
They could have done this with the serial numbers filed off and achieved the same result....in fact that's a pretty acceptable means of creating a satire of this nature (dark and only ironically funny) when the IP in question could be considered at risk because of the presentation. If they had done this using "not-Power Rangers" that nontheless were sufficiently analogous to the actual Power Rangers then they would probably still be up and running, and the satire would still be on target. I think the irony here is adults who seem to have lost connection with the intended audience of a show like Power Ranger: kids. As an adult we all get that Power Ranger is basically a purely escapist fantasy that requires a deliberately and meticulous simplified universe in order for its heroes and villains to function. It's a world of action toys come to life, basically. Any childhood IP brought into "adulthood" is going to look weird when you start factoring in mature themes, realism, and complexity (witness the Transformers films for example). The mere act of doing this does not constitute sature, it merely means you've taken the core conceits and migrated the content into a higher degree of fictional complexity. That in and of itself does not constitute satire, especially when it is well understood...even by most kids, I suspect, that the universe of the Power Rangers is a very narrow and shallow realm in terms of complexity and design.
I love Power Rangers since I was a kid
and I watched this new one
I think its a great movie, but not for kids hehe
please visit my blog Razi.