Gritty 'Power Rangers' Short Is Not Fair Use

Bennett Haselton writes: Vimeo and Youtube are pressured to remove a dark, fan-made "Power Rangers" short film; Vimeo capitulated, while Youtube has so far left it up. I'm generally against the overreach of copyright law, but in this case, how could anyone argue the short film doesn't violate the rights of the franchise creator? And should Vimeo and Youtube clarify their policies on the unauthorized use of copyrighted characters? Read on for the rest.

"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 .

Comments

Parody

[gweeks]

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.

Re:Parody

[g0bshiTe]

Bennett makes the assertion it's not parody due to it's darn nature and lack of humor, considering how campy the original was a parody would be the exact opposite which is what it sounds like is there.

Never was a fan of the show, I strongly feel guys in suits destroying cities is best left to classic Godzilla movies.

Re:Parody

[bhcompy]

You don't see the humor in changing a hilariously bad kids show into a very serious adult movie? Satire, parody, and humor aren't just in the domain of chuckles.

Re:Parody

[xclr8r]

relevant link http://io9.com/the-truth-behin...

Re:Parody

[Luthair]

Parody and satire don't require humour anyway.

Re:Parody

[TroyHaskin]

Not only is it a parody of the show for turning the original tone on its head, but it is also a parody of how every remake/re-imagining these days is gritty, depressing, colorless, and "realistic" (I blame Ronald D. Moore's BSG). I was a fan of the show as a kid and thought the entire thing was brilliant.

Re:Parody

[jellomizer]

It could argue that it is a parody. The official Power Rangers are Anti-Gritty, clean cut one dimensional good guys (at least they were when I was a child). To make them a more complex and morally ambiguous to show off how clean cut the original is parodying the original.

I

Re:Parody

[bluefoxlucid]

"Satire" doesn't mean "Different".

Re:Parody

[sosume]

But in current copyright law, there is no longer a viable way to create a derivative work and benefit from it. In the past, when a new music or art style became popular, many people would start creating by copying each other. Even the last two major music styles to emerge, hip hop and edm, started by using existing samples and copying each other verbatim and not bothering other artists with royalty claims. This is now legally closed, the estates of deceased musicians will sue for use of specific words, a chord scheme or bass line and get rewarded. People are just too damn greedy. What happened to 'limited time' and 'public domain'?

Re:Parody

[Firethorn]

I think that this is getting into deciding whether or not something is 'art' type areas. Seeing as how I just had to take 'art appreciation' last semester, I have a little more appreciation for this.

Personally, I don't think pulling a toilet out of a dump, rinsing it off, then presenting it as your own art(without any modification) is actually art. If anything, it's the art of the designer of the toilet. But it was shown in a major art show none the less, and the community decided it was art. Some people have decided that dumping a cross into a mason jar of urine is art. I think that's a political statement more than art, but again, other people disagree with me.

So, with the disclaimer that I haven't seen the video, I can see people being artsy-fartsy enough to believe that the 'grittier' show is a parody of the parody that was power rangers. It all gets very meta. ;)

Re:Parody

[TopherC]

So it's a parody of the response that it would evoke by being an arguably infringing work? That's prescient! If this were actually enough to prove that it's non-infringing (it's not IMO) then maybe the parody fails and then makes the short infringing again on the original grounds, which ...

Sorry I tried to make a temporal paradox out of it. Best I could do.

Re:Parody

[tysonedwards]

One may argue that the alternate take of characters as being pawns in an intergalactic war that they know nothing about could be described as "a deliberate exaggeration for comedic effect". By definition, the situation depicted including their failure due to a lack of knowledge on the true nature of what they were involved in would be described as a "comedy of errors", and as such fit the legal definition.

Re:Parody

[Oligonicella]

Bull. Just now watched it. It was someone wanting to do a grim and dark PW. It wasn't at all tongue in cheek.

Re:Parody

[JWW]

So what?

It was an interesting bit of film.

One that does NOT ONE DAMN THING to detract from the "actual" Power Rangers.

If our fucked up copyright laws forbid something as simple as this then that whole "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" shit that was intended is totally gone to hell.

If we can't stand on the shoulders of giants (or dudes in tacky suits) and create "new" interpretations, then we've lost the real reason for copyright anyway. I'm not saying that Power Rangers doesn't deserve copyright, but I am saying that reasonable copyright terms should have put it in the public domain by now.

I am currently boycotting all songs from Tom Petty because of his crappy copyright challenge to Sam Smith's "borrowing his song" I mean come on, if we compare every song with every other song and "alter the tempo", and "vary the pitch" then we're screwed. Music reuses all kinds of things all the time. Fuck, soon people will try to copyrighting fucking chords progressions and beats. Yeah Sam Smith's song resembles one of Petty's, but only if you torture it enough. What's next, syllable counts on choruses? That shit was ridiculous.

Copyright has become a farce that no longer does any good for the public. And since thats what it was supposed to be for, I'd say its high time we scrap the whole decrepit edifice of modern copyright law and start over.

Re:Parody

[jeffmflanagan]

>If our fucked up copyright laws forbid something as simple as this then that whole "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" shit that was intended is totally gone to hell.

Did you just notice this? Copyright hasn't been about promoting progress for decades.

Re:Parody

[TroyHaskin]

Fair enough. But let me put on my lawyer hat (i.e., go to Wikipedia, try to find a pertinent precedent, find the actual opinion, and quote like hell) and see what I can do. ...

I reference Campbell, aka Skyywalker, et al. v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. from the United State Reports Volume 510: Cases Adjudged in The Supreme Court at October Term,1993 (PDF page 773).

Concerning the fair use defense of 2 Live Crew to parody Roy Orbison's song "Oh, Pretty Woman", to quote Justice Souter's opinion for a unanimous Court decision (pp. 782-783):

The first factor in a fair use enquiry is ... to see ... whether the new work merely "supersede[s] the objects" of the original ..., or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message; it asks, in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is "transformative."

I would argue, thought I'm sure not without debated, that POWER/RANGERS fulfills this transformative requirement of fair use.

Concerning the issue of parody, Justice Souter goes on to say (p.784):

For the purposes of copyright law, the nub of the definitions, and the heart of any parodist’s claim to quote from existing material, is the use of some elements of a prior author’s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author’s works.

POWER/RANGERS offers the perspective, or critique, of teenagers being recruited to fight an intergalactic war with more actual war-like elements that stand in stark contrast to the light-hearted portrayal of the sampled work. It mimics the characters and world but does make a point: war isn't as fun as was shown.

Concerning the issue of excessive use of elements from the original work, the Justice says (p.792):

Parody presents a difficult case. Parody’s humor, or in any event its comment, necessarily springs from recognizable allusion to its object through distorted imitation. Its art lies in the tension between a known original and its parodic twin. When parody takes aim at a particular original work, the parody must be able to “conjure up” at least enough of that original to make the object of its critical wit recognizable.

I would argue that the author of the work in question took as many elements as needed to make the parody recognizable to the audience such that the parody would function. In taking those elements however, the author did transform a number of aspects to suite the intended parodic purpose of the piece (e.g., newly added machine guns, Bulk and Skull turning homicidal, the protagonists losing and dying).

Lastly, concerning the economic incentive, the Justice states (p.794):

[The fourth fair use factor] requires courts to consider not only the extent of market harm caused by the particular actions of the alleged infringer, but also "whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant . . . would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market" for the original.

Since the work is blatantly made without the desire of monetary feedback, is not intended to supersede or replace any of the extant or future productions of the original work or author, and has done nothing but bring attention to the original work through this parody, the fourth factor of fair use is satisfied.

But again, I'm no lawyer. I just play one on Slashdot.

Re:Parody

[machineghost]

One that does NOT ONE DAMN THING to detract from the "actual" Power Rangers.

I'm incredibly anti-copyright law, but even to me that's obviously not true. Every time a certain fictional character is used, people's perception of that character changes. By showing the Power Rangers this way the video's creator is changing our perceptions of the Power Rangers.

All it takes is just a single person:

1) seeing the video
2) associating (subconsciously) the brand with darkness
3) deciding to buy a gift of Legos instead of a Power Rangers toy as a result

and then clearly the video has detracted from the "actual" Power Rangers (in the sense that their IP's owner will sell one less toy because of the video).

Don't believe me? Imagine if everyone was legally allowed to use Mickey Mouse. There would Mickey Mouse snuff films, Mickey Mouse versions of 50 Shades, Mickey Mouse promoting drug use, etc. If enough of that stuff exists kids would see it and would never look at Mickey Mouse the same way again. That absolutely detracts from Disney's ability to keep Mickey a wholesome character that they can make tons of money off.

Now, should Mickey be in the public domain by now? Absolutely (screw you Disney). But let's not pretend that if anyone can make any version of any famous character they want that it won't have any effect on how people see that character (and thus detract from the original author's vision of them).

Re:Parody

[LateArthurDent]

"Satire" doesn't mean "Different".

In a reddit AMA, Khan explained what he wanted to show was the nature of how society finds violence acceptable in a kids show versus what they consider adult themed. He said the major difference between his short and the original power rangers cartoon was that when characters get shot, red liquid spurts out. Plus he showed titties. Other than that, it's the same type of fighting, with people hurting or killing others. But one is a kid's show and the other is "gritty".

It absolutely fits as satire and valid commentary.

Re:Parody

[sjames]

copyrighting fucking chords progressions and beats

We're close. George Harrison was sued for 3 notes. What's worse, the case dragged on so many years and with ownership passed around so many times that by the time a verdict was reached, Harrison was both parties. Too bizarre to make it up!

Re:Parody

[cpt kangarooski]

You're allowed to use copyrighted material to parody that specific material, but not to parody something else.

This is the oft-cited parody/satire dichotomy.

No seriously, some people really get into this stuff.

Anyway, it's not a bright line rule or anything, though some people like to pretend that it is. Satire is just as able to be a fair use as a parody can be, and a loss on the third fair use factor does not by itself prevent a use from being a fair use. There are no bright lines in fair use; it's all case-by-case analyses, utterly dependent on the specific facts at issue.

Re:Parody

[cpt kangarooski]

a parody is allowed to use however much of the original work it wants to.

That's not quite right.

There's no special status for works which are parodies. Some parodies can be fair uses, but not all parodies are. And not all fair uses are parodies, though some fair uses are.

In any case, one factor in determining whether a use is fair or not is how much, and of that how substantial a part, of the original work is used. It's possible to have a fair use that uses all of a work, but also possible to have a use which uses very little of a work, but which is not fair.

While it all depends on the circumstances at hand, a good rule of thumb is to take only so much as you need. If you wanted to make a parody of Star Wars about how Luke waving the lightsaber around in Obi-Wan's house is dangerous, because Luke is a klutz, you could probably use some footage of that scene from the movie. You would have a harder time justifying using the entire movie, but only changing that one scene for the purposes of parody.

Re:Parody

[cpt kangarooski]

Peter Pan is in the public domain in the US. You can absolutely have Peter Pan promoting drug use ('fairy dust' can be the street name; a side effect might be paranoid hallucinations of ticking crocodiles, etc.), and publish it widely enough to detract from Disney's ability to keep Peter Pan a wholesome character that they can make tons of money off.

Go nuts.

But because people can ignore that -- In fact, I'm confident that there are bad porn versions of Peter Pan floating around -- it doesn't really detract from the original, or from the Disney movies, unless you allow it to. It's up to you, the audience member.

Re:Parody

[cpt kangarooski]

I don't think the parody exemption for copyrighed works applies to things protected by trademark, which I wouldn't be surprised if the Power Rangers are.

It does.

(Though the question of parodying a mark directly is different from parodying a work which happens to contain a mark. Parodying Star Wars, which includes X-Wings, and the Millennium Falcon, and Lightsabers, and so on is different from parodying the Star Wars logo all by itself)

Also, remember that trademarks are inferior to, and cannot be used as a substitute for, copyrights. And that trademarks themselves are subject to various limitations to allow for certain types of unauthorized use.

Re:Parody

[LateArthurDent]

Isn't satire supposed to be funny?

Actually, no. Satire can use humor, but it's not a requirement. It can use any other tools available, as long it is used to criticize a topic:

Satire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

Fair use? No. Copyright infringement? Not anymore.

[Guspaz]

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.

Re:As long as it is not an official power rangers

[bluefoxlucid]

Yes, but without using the same trademark.

"Cartoon"?

[ildon]

Power Rangers has always been a live action TV show.

Maybe you need an English lesson

[Anonymous Coward]

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)

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.

Forget fair use. Call it parody or commentary.

[mr_mischief]

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:

Full Definition of SATIRE

1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

Definition of SATIRE

a creative work that uses sharp humor to point up the foolishness of a person, institution, or human nature in general
Synonyms lampoon, pasquinade
Related Words burlesque, caricature, parody, spoof, takeoff; comedy, farce, sketch, skit, slapstick, squib; derision, ridicule; cartoon, mockery, travesty

Please stop.

[pla]

Slashdot: News from Reddit, Bennett's Blog.

What is Parody?

[l0ungeb0y]

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.

Re:Fair use? No. Copyright infringement? Not anymo

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Whole areas of art and music

[presidenteloco]

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.

Re:Whole areas of art and music

[kamapuaa]

But what you're saying would be equivalent to somebody else making their own show where kids turn into ninjas and attack warriors, not just somebody making their own Power Rangers mini-movie.

Similarly, there's a difference between being inspired by a band, and just re-doing their song without permission.

Satire *and* Parody

[madro]

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.

Re:Characters can be trademarked

[Yebyen]

You are not a lawyer, you are right about that. The character of Mickey Mouse is copyrighted, in addition to being protected by Trademark.

Re:Characters can be trademarked

[Yebyen]

The character of Mickey Mouse is copyrighted, in addition to being protected by Trademark.

Sorry but you are wrong. Look it up. It's both.

http://www.trademarkandcopyrig...

http://copyright.uslegal.com/c...

http://dearauthor.com/features...

Hmmm

[Maury Markowitz]

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.

Re:Hmmm

[gameboyhippo]

Saban legally had a license to create Power Rangers using the footage from Super Sentai shows. The derived work is owned by Saban. This isn't the first time this has happened either. Voltron is a reimagining of "Go Lion". Card Captors deviated quite a bit from Card Captor Sakura.

Re:As long as it is not an official power rangers

[prelelat]

If I recall a lot of those star trek fan fiction and even the season 5 had the go ahead from Gene's estate to continue them. Though I do believe Paramount still holds a lot of the copyright and trademark they seem to have given the approval as long as they don't make a profit. That's their call though, it's my understanding that Paramount could put its' foot down and end it at any time and they would have to just walk away.

So why do they allow it? Because it's good for the fan base. It helps breed a culture of die hard fans and feeds their need for content. If they wanted to do a reboot of the series with darker tones it could be damaging to their brand as well. Though I think the creator said specifically they didn't want to.

This is a high quality short that I could see the originator being pissed about because it's not what they want power rangers to be. Unless they can figure out how to stand on the parody but I think that's a flimsy defense.

IANAL

Parody is protected

[rjh]

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.

TOTALLY fair use

[SoftwareArtist]

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.

Re:TOTALLY fair use

[bennetthaselton]

If this were the standard, then the concept of "copyrighted characters" would be meaningless, because anybody would be free to create new works of fiction using someone else's characters, as long as it was noncommercial and used no portion of the original work.

But, the general legal consensus seems to be that character copyrights are enforceable, i.e., you are not free to create works using someone else's characters even meeting criteria 1-4 above.

Re:TOTALLY fair use

[bennetthaselton]

In the article, the words "characters themselves can be protected by copyright" are linked to this page, which is written by a lawyer:
http://www.ivanhoffman.com/cha...
Ergo, thank you for calling my post interesting.

Sigh...clickbait

[bwcbwc]

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.

Author of post doesn't understand Fair Use...

[djpretzel]

Fair Use is an affirmative defense; /. posting an article claiming that something "Is Not Fair Use" is misleading and irresponsible - only a judge/court can determine if something is or is not Fair Use, and only if given the chance to do so.

Given that the video in question is a work of fan fiction, the following seems relevant:

"Works of fanfiction are more likely to constitute fair use if they are "transformative" with respect to the original work, if they are non-commercial, if they appropriate relatively little of the original work, and/or if they do not tend to detract from the potential market for or value of the original work.[9]"

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.

foundering father:

[Thud457]

"Steamboat Willy" was a shitty cartoon anyway.

Re:Fair use? No. Copyright infringement? Not anymo

[Half-pint HAL]

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.