... again, I don't see a transformational use of the music in the video. If RevoLucian were sufficiently antisocial, for instance, he could sue the dude who made a YouTube video out of his O'Reilly Dance Remix, because simply adding the video to go with the audio, from the exact same Inside Edition rant, would likely not pass a judge's transformational test.
However, in the real world there has been much skittishness over the years about using ANYTHING that comes from Big Media over fear of legal action. This document suggests there is a way out of that, by distinguishing pure ripoff (e.g., last night's Colbert reposted to YouTube) from creative reuse (the famed, 100% Viacom-approved Colbert mashups).
Also, remember these guys have a track record. Pat Aufderheide told me that after their statement on docufilms came out in 2005, Kirby Dick used more than 150 classic Hollywood movie clips in his documentary about the MPAA... and didn't license a one. If you've seen This Film Is Not Yet Rated, you'd know why - and see a textbook example of transformational use.
Samples are different. There is a whole different wing of case law for samples. Also, fair use is not just about commentary. The key word is TRANSFORMATIONAL. I shoulda linked to my story as well, which discusses that aspect a bit.
But yes, if you can show that you are taking something and making something significantly "new" from it, fair use applies, whether it is commentary or a dance remix of O'Reilly's rant.
But the artist who did that composed his own music. If you just sample, you're taking music and making.... music. Not transformational.
I had a chance to see a lengthy demo of WM9 at NAB2003 this week. Now granted, I don't spend much time on the Windows side of the tracks, but I was duly impressed. I mean, I know what I can and can't do with my cable modem connection -- and judging from the transfer speeds of the WM9 player I can definitely play hidef and 5.1 on my machine. Errr, if I owned a Windows machine, which I don't. But my point is the data would fit through my pipe.
Here is my NAB Journal entry with screenshots. I have a picture of the projector Landmark is installing in its theaters but not on this machine. I'll upload if anyone's int'rested.
By the way, I plan to write more about this so if you're authoritative on WM9 (either pro or con) and you don't work for MS or one of its endless outsourcers or PR firms, could you email me?
I wrote a column for a trade magazine earlier this year profiling the "rogue" founder of iCraveTV. In it he explains the biggest problem facing his nationality-sniffing technology: figuring out whether a user from AOL.COM is logging in from Canada or another country. Apparently ordinary checkers get spoofed all the time on this. But he claimed near-100 percent detection for his i-wall system. And for those of you wondering what the cable companies' role in all this is, you may be surprised what he says.
Slashdot Mirror
... again, I don't see a transformational use of the music in the video. If RevoLucian were sufficiently antisocial, for instance, he could sue the dude who made a YouTube video out of his O'Reilly Dance Remix, because simply adding the video to go with the audio, from the exact same Inside Edition rant, would likely not pass a judge's transformational test.
However, in the real world there has been much skittishness over the years about using ANYTHING that comes from Big Media over fear of legal action. This document suggests there is a way out of that, by distinguishing pure ripoff (e.g., last night's Colbert reposted to YouTube) from creative reuse (the famed, 100% Viacom-approved Colbert mashups).
Also, remember these guys have a track record. Pat Aufderheide told me that after their statement on docufilms came out in 2005, Kirby Dick used more than 150 classic Hollywood movie clips in his documentary about the MPAA ... and didn't license a one. If you've seen This Film Is Not Yet Rated, you'd know why - and see a textbook example of transformational use.
Samples are different. There is a whole different wing of case law for samples. Also, fair use is not just about commentary. The key word is TRANSFORMATIONAL. I shoulda linked to my story as well, which discusses that aspect a bit.
But yes, if you can show that you are taking something and making something significantly "new" from it, fair use applies, whether it is commentary or a dance remix of O'Reilly's rant.
But the artist who did that composed his own music. If you just sample, you're taking music and making .... music. Not transformational.
However, if you use the word "mashup" you're probably a jerk.
Which I guess would be you minus the "-off"?
I had a chance to see a lengthy demo of WM9 at NAB2003 this week. Now granted, I don't spend much time on the Windows side of the tracks, but I was duly impressed. I mean, I know what I can and can't do with my cable modem connection -- and judging from the transfer speeds of the WM9 player I can definitely play hidef and 5.1 on my machine. Errr, if I owned a Windows machine, which I don't. But my point is the data would fit through my pipe.
Here is my NAB Journal entry with screenshots. I have a picture of the projector Landmark is installing in its theaters but not on this machine. I'll upload if anyone's int'rested. By the way, I plan to write more about this so if you're authoritative on WM9 (either pro or con) and you don't work for MS or one of its endless outsourcers or PR firms, could you email me?
I wrote a column for a trade magazine earlier this year profiling the "rogue" founder of iCraveTV. In it he explains the biggest problem facing his nationality-sniffing technology: figuring out whether a user from AOL.COM is logging in from Canada or another country. Apparently ordinary checkers get spoofed all the time on this. But he claimed near-100 percent detection for his i-wall system. And for those of you wondering what the cable companies' role in all this is, you may be surprised what he says.