Slashdot Log In
Disney Video Used to Explain Copyright
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Mon May 21, 2007 07:50 AM
from the insanely-well-done dept.
from the insanely-well-done dept.
Recently a pretty amazing video surfaced that used clips from Disney films to explain copyright law. It was created by Eric Faden of Bucknell University and must have taken an insane amount of time to assemble. Now you have to wonder how long before someone gets sued over it. Also here is a corel cache version as well as a link to the original page.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Disney Video Used to Explain Copyright
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 234 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Wow (Score:1, Offtopic)
Corel? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh Mickey you're so fine... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.infiltrated.net/)
Re:Oh Mickey you're so fine... (Score:4, Funny)
Remus: Zip-a-dee-do-dah, Zip-a-dee-a. If you're watching this movie in the US, you've obtained it illegally. Plenty of lawyers comin' your way. Zip-a-dee-do-dah, Zip-a-dee-a.
The Pig and the Box :) (Score:1)
(http://geggus.net/sven/)
http://dustrunners.blogspot.com/2006/07/pig-and-b
YouTube Link (Score:1, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday February 17 2006, @06:59AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo [youtube.com]
enjoy.
Re:YouTube Link (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.securityzone.org/)
Re:YouTube Link (Score:4, Funny)
(Last Journal: Monday October 15, @11:53PM)
You forgot a few:
poster
postable
postface
posthaste
postdate
postdigestive
etc.
The more "post" and the less of any other words, the better. Please try to work more variations of "post" into your next... err... submission.
BitTorrent Anyone ? (Score:2)
(http://www.westnet.com/~chris/)
Re:BitTorrent Anyone ? (Score:4, Funny)
that was tedious (Score:2, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday October 29, @07:20AM)
Didn't like it. (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/~Spy+der+Mann/journal/ | Last Journal: Saturday November 10, @01:50AM)
Mirrordot (Score:4, Informative)
Video as a Test (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.securityzone.org/)
Honestly, I would be quite interested in what Disney does on this one. This would be nice to track.
Re:Video as a Test (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.myspace.com/johnnycashed)
Re:Video as a Test (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://photo.net/photos/swillden | Last Journal: Wednesday July 19 2006, @01:42PM)
Disney will do absolutely nothing. There's negative value to Disney in even issuing a DMCA takedown notice, much less suing the creator of this video.
If they were to sue or issue a takedown, the very best that could happen (from their perspective) is that the video would be taken down. There's virtually no chance of any kind of monetary judgement, and none at all that they could be awarded and collect an amount of money that Disney would actually care about.
The worst that could happen, on the other hand, is that the whole thing could garner huge amounts of publicity and get mainstream columnists and pundits talking about the issues, the concept of Fair Use, questions about appropriate copyright durations and the purpose of copyright, etc.
It's also possible that the court's ruling could establish some broad precedent, either strongly reaffirming and expanding Fair Use, or undermining and limiting it, but both scenarios are very, very unlikely. This video targets the exact center of Fair Use -- it's criticism and education, for non-profit purposes and its almost complete lack of entertainment value ensures that it's no threat to the commercial success of the films it uses. A court would have to completely gut Fair Use to rule that this video is infringing, and that's not going to happen. To expand and strengthen Fair Use, a court would have to not only rule that this video is non-infringing, it would have to voluntarily add sweeping statements defining Fair Use. Courts don't do that, they strive to keep their rulings as narrow and precise as possible.
No, Disney won't see any value in pursuing this to set a favorable precedent, won't get anything significant from attacking it and would risk significant negative publicity. They'll do nothing.
classic (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.poadshaw.com/shaw.htm)
Next up (Score:3, Funny)
Bravo! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://excelcia.org/)
I'm not one to waste space with a "me too" post that is essentially just the noise of me clapping, but this video deserves a standing ovation.
Re:Bravo! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://dexplor.com/)
So not as much effort went into this as the story poster intoned. It's not like someone manually scanned through these movies and TV shows to watch and listen for the needed words.
Dan East
Buzz "Copy" Lightyear (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Buzz "Copy" Lightyear (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm Eric Faden the director of the film . . . and yes, Buzz provided the only clear enuciation of the word "copy" that we could find. The Monster's Inc. enuciation at the end of the film couldn't be isolated clearly enough. It was quite interesting to see what words Disney films avoided like the plague: "copy" "piracy" "artist" (very interesting) "creativity."
As an FYI, there will be a director's commentary on the MEF DVD release (in June) that talks about the ideas and challenges of putting the film together.
And thanks to everyone at Slashdot for the great comments . . .
best,
e
Worth the effort? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://tc.dk/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @01:57AM)
Viral marketing payed by the legal department of Disney, if you want. If it works. If Disney can't find a quiet way to kill it. On the otherhand, if they do not try to kill it, a small piece of fair use got got accepted, and will set a precedence. A win-win situation, as far as I see it.
Disney irony (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday February 18 2005, @09:55AM)
Re:Disney irony (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Thursday July 12, @12:30PM)
For fun, compare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_doma
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Disney_anima
How does it stack up on the "four-factor" test? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.dpbsmith.com/)
"Factor 1: Character of the use:" seems to me that in their first column it's nonprofit, and arguably educational. In the middle, it's criticism, commentary, and most bodaciously "transformative."
"Factor 2: What is the nature of the work to be used?": Imaginative and published, somewhere in the "doesn't tip the balance" part of University of Texas' scale.
"Factor 3: How much of the work will you use?" Only a small amount is being used for each work. I'm not sure what the total amount used from any individual work is, but it's tiny.
"Factor 4: If this kind of use were widespread, what effect would it have on the market for the original or for permissions?" I find it impossible to believe that a person with a copy of this video would show it to their kids in lieu of any of the Disney films from which the clips were taken. And I don't believe the Disney organization is currently making any money at all licensing clips for use in videos like this one.
an insane amount of time to assemble? (Score:1, Insightful)
It's brilliant, and all credit to Mr. Faden for his great work.
But re: "it must have taken an insane amount of time to assemble"... Just to point out how it looks from the other guy's point of view, I'd estimate (as a filmmaker) that it'd take me a couple of days to cut something like this together, plus a couple of days research. i.e. four days or so for one person. Please compare and contrast with the 3-4 years it took hundreds if not thousands of people to make any of one the movies shown in the montage.
Now that's "an insane amount of time to assemble".
I'm not defending unfair copyright -- but please remember, this stuff doesn't grow on trees.
Make sure... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://picturesq.eu/)
Corel?? (Score:1, Funny)
If disney doesn't blow a gasket with that (Score:1)
Ariel is a dirty mermaid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related
and Jasmine is a dirty princess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqpD4zX7Sw0&mode=r
Original animation with the songs redubbed...holy crap, funny! Disney's Nazgul are already riding, the creators will be dragged back to Mouschwitz for sure.
The Pirates come to the rescue ;-) (Score:2, Informative)
Don't criticize Disney!! (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.youtube.com/siener)
If copyrights expire then everyone could just profit from other people's work instead of having to come up with original material the way Disney has over the years. Imagine if Disney could just use works with expired copyright instead of creating originals like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast, Treasure Island (Planet), the Little Mermaid and hundreds more
No Value In Disney's Movies (Score:1)
Disney Video Used to Explain Copyright (Score:1)
(http://www.p2p-zone....forumdisplay.php?f=5)
Opera users who view the YouTube stream will find the 29 MB .TMP file already sitting in their cache where it's easily converted to a 49MB .MPG with Batch FLV Converter (for those who can't play .FLVs directly).
Anyone else can download the 71 MB .MP4 directly from here: http://www.filmspot.com/users/jrgreenmd/show_blog_ entry.php?topic_id=m-100-25002790 [filmspot.com]
No need to visit the PirateBay - unless you're ready to pounce on POTC III.
- js.
Disney Movies Utilized (Score:3, Informative)
(http://dexplor.com/)
Aladdin
Alice in Wonderland
Atlantis: The Lost Empire
Bambi
Beauty and the Beast
Dumbo
The Emperor's New Grove
Finding Nemo
Hercules
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
The Incredibles
Jungle Book
Lilo and Stitch
The Lion King
The Little Mermaid
Monsters, Inc
Mulan
101 Dalmatians
Peter Pan
Pinocchio
Sleeping Beauty
Snow white and the Seven Dwarves
Tarzan
Tarzan II
Toy Story
Toy Story 2
Treasure Planet
Dan East
Dance? (Score:2)
Fair use is not a right (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://soayacs.blogspot.com/)
Movie studios have every right to make copying video discs difficult. They're not obligated to sell unencrypted data; they sell bits and we voluntarily buy bits. But it must not be made illegal for purchasers to circumvent that copy protection if they are able.
And I truly wish that the creators and Congress would remember that there are two parts to the bargain of copyright: an unnatural protection of creative works from copying and a reasonable, limited duration for that protection. Congress might have the right to extend the copyright duration to forever and a day, but it's a stupid move because it stifles the creativity that copyright is meant to promote.
AlpineR
On the benefits to the public domain/culture (Score:2, Informative)
So, even if a company like Disney were to obtain a copyright for 1,000 years how are the benefits to our culture reduced? Are we less off because we can't write "The Lion King 4" using the same characters/storylines from the movie? The ideas and themes in those movies are already reproduced in hundreds and thousands of works (both older and newer than the movies) - so what's the downside?
Asking for a well-reasoned reply...and, yes, I know this is Slashdot... But I'd like to add to my thinking on this - which I realize may be lacking.
Just imagine.. the copyright on 1984 (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Thursday December 07 2006, @07:57PM)
In a similar vein, Burgess' "1985" will be public domain in 2063, but I don't like that book anyway so I don't mind if I don't live that long.
What's missing... (Score:1)
(http://www.saysomethingcryptic.com/)
"Copy..." - Buzz Lightyear
Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (Score:2)
Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I found the quick cuts too jarring to allow me to watch more than a minute of it, but as for the use of the logo in the beginning, he has a decent position. Nominative use is allowed -- how can he say he's not affiliated with Disney if he can't say the name 'Disney' in the disclaimer? But the use of the entire animated logo and music would need to fall under the overall parody, which had better be non-commercial in nature, as this one appears to be. His position isn't airtight; he'd've done better to just simply say that he wasn't affiliated with Disney, rather than to use the logo animation, but he has a decent argument in his favor.
Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:ummm....fair use (Score:2)
Re:Didn't really think this through... (Score:1, Offtopic)
(http://evil.google.com/)
Re:Didn't really think this through... (Score:2, Informative)
The video falls under fair use as it makes brief use of copyrighted works in an educational manner, and doesn't devalue any of the material that it uses in its clips.
I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't hoping for a DMCA takedown notice by Disney.
Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (Score:4, Insightful)
Very well thought through thinking... (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Friday October 19, @12:23PM)
Re:Description, please! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.billrocks.org/)
Personally, I hope the authors achieve some success in swaying public opinion in favor of reasonable restrictions on copyright length.
Re:Description, please! (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://bakahoushi.deviantart.com/)
Re:Description, please! (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly enough, the greater an artist is, the less they need a long term of protection. As others have pointed out as well, people turn a profit on their work much faster than ever before in our history. The vast majority of works earn very little after only a few years of turning a profit. Then you have the long tail of earnings dropoff. A relative handful of works will continue to be profitable, but those works will have made so much money already that the creator will hardly be starving (unless he gets lost for a week in one of his mansions). The astoundingly small fraction of works that make little money up front, and a lot later, are an aberration, and not something to base the law on when compared to the public need to have access to our culture to reshape and use to express new ideas. Setting the copyright term to something that is at least defensible, maybe 20 years like patents, would help to balance the interests involved here. If the public is going to grant a monopoly on something, then the public should be getting something back from that deal. We used to, but we haven't gotten anything back for decades now.
Re:Description, please! (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday August 20, @01:07PM)
The film starts out with a potential violation, with Disney's film opening (the castle, and tune that goes with it).
Disney's logo is shown, while additional text above it says, essentially, "this is not endorsed or created by..." No potential confusion there, so the trademark (not copyright) is used appropriately.
Oh, and the original copyright term was fourteen years, not seventeen. Personally, I can't comprehend why the digital age needs longer copyrights than the founders thought appropriate in the age of crude printing presses. It should be more like seven, these days.
Socialism and the public domain (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://1-4-4.home.comcast.net/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 01 2006, @03:16PM)
The problem is, it's somewhat socialist to prevent someone from profiting on their work indefinitely.
For instance: suppose Aerosmith were to perform a song they wrote twenty years ago. Fine, they're still making money from their old work, good for them. Copyright isn't what grants them that ability - it's the fact that the audience recognizes them as the original performers of the song that makes their performance of the song notable. And if the song fell into the public domain, the loss of copyright control doesn't deny them the ability to do that, either. Other artists could cover the song if it passed into the public domain, or sample it for use in their songs. So long as they do a good job of it they, too, deserve a measure of financial reward.
With something like a film it's more difficult, of course: when the film goes public domain, anyone can sell copies of it. The profitability of the movie is then rather limited once copyright lapses. Copyright could be re-asserted by creating a new version of the work, but that's about it. (for instance, suppose "Star Wars" had fallen into public domain by 1997: the "Special Editions" would contain the original film, of course, but would constitute a new work based upon it - meaning that if the audience wants the special edition rather than the original, the copyright control is effectively extended... though nothing prevents someone else from making their own "Special Edition" in this scenario...) Alternately, remakes, sequels, etc. could be made - since again, other people could do this as well, the creators would have to distinguish their works somehow - name-dropping (getting the original cast and writers back, or getting their endorsements, and making this known) would be one way, simply making a better film would be another.
The recurring theme in either case, however, is this: During the copyright period you get exclusivity that increases your profits. Afterwards, you have to keep working if you want to keep getting paid.
There's nothing inherently "right" about the current length of copyright - it currently gives the creator enough exclusivity to give them a lifetime of profit from a single work, to maintain exclusivity through three generations worth of audience. That's enough time for a work to be not only a major hit, but a major cultural phenomenon - combining that kind of span with exclusivity gives the creator a lot of power - too much, perhaps.
Re:Description, please! (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.haeleth.net/)
It's not even as though a work entering the public domain, even after a mere seven years, would stop its creators from profiting from it! They could carry on selling it, and people would carry on buying it, because people are as loyal to brands as they are to price. Has Coca-Cola stopped being profitable, even though cheaper brands of carbonated sugar-water are available?
And if they wanted more guaranteed profit, they could, uh, work for it. For example, only Disney would be able to record new commentary tracks from people who worked on the old film (which, being new, would then be covered by that limited copyright once more). Only Disney would be able to pull new footage out of their unpublished archives (assuming limited copyright was timed from first publication, which seems reasonable). Heck, assuming trademark law remained in force, you could even reasonably propose that only Disney would be able to use the original name for the film, and other distributors would have to change the title screen and so forth accordingly - the key thing being, after all, not that people could watch Mickey Mouse for free, but that the work itself could be used in new creative endeavours.
Sadly, it seems Disney et al. are more interested in destructive solutions, lobbying for ever-more-draconian punishments for the very people who love their work the most, than in constructive solutions, exploring creative possibilities for monetising entertainment in a digital age. Let's hope they come to their senses soon.
Ummm... copyright is civil (Score:2, Insightful)
(http://excelcia.org/)
And your post, which some might think* should be criminal, is really just indicative of a low watt bulb.
* This author does not disclose what he believes on this subject on the grounds that he would absolutely incriminate himself.
Re:Ummm... copyright is civil (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://albanach.com/)
Re:Description, please! (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:ummm....fair use (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.tjerkstra.org/)
Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday January 08 2007, @02:45PM)
The use of the Disney logo doesn't violate trademark law because it was accompanied by a "this movie is not endorsed by:" line. The purpose of trademark law is not to prevent people from reproducing imagery, but rather to avoid consumer confusion. I don't think many consumers would be confused by a large disclaimer stating "this is not affiliated with Disney!" (anymore than they would think that my post is endorsed by Disney, simply because I use their name in my post).
Furthermore, the entire video is both a massive comedic parody, and a commentary on the current state of copyright. As the video points out, these are two things which are supposedly protected by fair use. You are allowed to use clips in order to criticize something and/or for satire.
Another bit of irony is that the author of the video threw in some clips from Aladdin, where the genie was performing satire. If you've ever watched Aladdin, you'll know how many jokes in that movie revolved around the genie making reference to all kinds of movies and actors. Many of the genie's lines are taken verbatim from other movies, for instance.
So, if Disney is protected by the satire/parody clause in copyright, why isn't this short, informative, humorous video? If a video like this is not protected by fair use (does it reduce the economic potential of Aladdin to show 8 clips, each 0.8 seconds long, from that movie?) then the law is ever more broken than I previously thought.
You didn't think your post through (Score:2)
Furthermore it makes use of content from the company that you could argue has benefited the most of anyone from works in the public domain - Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, etc. etc. Is it any wonder the quality of Disney movies has declined since this source or original creativity to base stories on has dried up thanks to longer copyright terms?
Use of Disney works to give this lesson is genius, and makes a number of great points all at once. It's not like they would be sued anyway, it would just be taken off YouTube.
Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://tribbin.nl/)
Or you missed the intentional joke of finding the edge of what the creator can/can't do.
Re:ummm....fair use (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Monday November 07 2005, @10:05AM)
Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Friday November 10 2006, @02:16PM)
Given Disney's stance on extending copyright indefinitely, it seems to me that was the author's intent.
As for use of the logo, there could be trademark issues, but satire is, of course, fair use for trademark as well.
On poking gorillas with sticks. (Score:3, Insightful)
Tangentially, actually watching it much like surgery, as well.
Parent is a troll (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday September 09, @10:43PM)
It's educational, non-profit, and only uses small portions of copyrighted works to make it's point. If that's not fair use, then snalshdot isn't a website.
Re:Description, please! (Score:2)
(http://stewart.snerk.org/)
Can't render video? As in your computer can't? I find it hard to believe that anybody in the targeted region of the world has a computer that can't render video. Is it a technical limitation or one of choice, I wonder?