Parody and Satire Videos, Which Is Fair Use? 286
Hugh Pickens writes "Ben Sheffner writes that both sides in Don Henley's lawsuit against California US Senate candidate Chuck DeVore (R) over campaign 'parody' videos that used Henley's tunes set to lyrics mocking Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) have now filed cross-motions for summary judgment, teeing up a case that will likely clarify the rules for political uses of third-party material. The motions focus largely on one issue: whether the videos, which use the compositions 'The Boys of Summer' and 'All She Wants to do is Dance,' are 'parodies,' and thus likely fair uses, or, rather, unprivileged 'satires.' The Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994), said that a parody comments on the work itself; a satire uses the work to comment on something else, so for Henley, this is a simple case: DeVore's videos do not comment on Henley's songs but use Henley's songs to mock Boxer. DeVore argues that his videos do indeed target Henley, who has long been identified with liberal and Democratic causes, and asserts that the campaign chose to use Henley's songs for precisely that reason. 'DeVore's videos target Henley only in the loosest sense,' writes Sheffner, 'and his brief's arguments ... sound dangerously close to the post hoc rationalizations dismissed as "pure shtick" and "completely unconvincing" by the Ninth Circuit in Dr. Seuss Enters. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (1997).' The case also bears directly on the recent removal of the 'Downfall' clips from YouTube where many journalists have almost automatically labeled the removed videos 'parodies' while the vast majority aren't, says Sheffner."
Political speach (Score:4, Interesting)
I was under the impression that for the most part political speech enjoyed a far higher level of protection than most and this seems to fall very clearly into that category.
Republicans stealing music again? I'm shocked. (Score:3, Interesting)
Political speech enjoys higher levels of protection, but misuse of copyrighted works is not a free speech issue. It is a, oh what's the word, copyright issue. You do understand that, in order to work at all, copyright trumps free speech, except in limited circumstances like fair use and parody.
Republicans have a long, sordid history of using music without permissions, they especially love to use songs from artists who are not Republicans. Google 'republicans stealing music.'
This was the first page that came
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Free speech is about being able to get your message out against the government. To say that "copyright trumps free speech" is exactly wrong. Where copyright is counter to free political speech, copyright gives way.
Good liberalism supports totally free speech: freedom of speech, freedom of expression. For supposed "liberal" artists to get upset when their works are used as free speech is hypocritical.
If there's one thing that Americans left and right should have solidarity on it's the support of the Bill
Re:Republicans stealing music again? I'm shocked. (Score:5, Insightful)
They are two completely different issues.
Mock the king[1] all you want - but do it in your own words, not mine[2] - else you're just as much of a leecher as he is.
[1] of course he won't understand anyway, unless ye doeth itt iynn ye Germannical tongue.
[2] unless I say so, in which case pay up.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt he'll understand it even then. Mostly because he died in 1977!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit, you can't use copyrighted material in a political ad or speech without paying for it. Period.
All the rest of your post is a similar worthless obfuscation and appeal to emotion. If you want to make outrageous contra-factual claims, back them up with, oh I don't know, the relevant passages from the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Re:Republicans stealing music again? I'm shocked. (Score:4, Insightful)
It just seems odd that while you can twist a work to mocks/comment on the original work( which is politically fairly worthless) you cannot twist a work to mock/comment on what it was used to promote(which is politically fairly worthwhile).
Re: (Score:2)
Take that up with your congrewsscritter, but good luck getting it changed, it would require a constitutional ammendment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
this:
http://mises.org/images4/ObamaProgress.jpg [mises.org]
Which is certainly a derivative of this:
http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/7/2008/05/340x_obama-progress-poster.jpg [gawkerassets.com]
and would not be protected because it's about the subject of the original rather than the original.
It certainly carries a very valid message.
That just strikes me as stifling since it effectively blocks the creation of satires which resonate with or which people associate with what you want to respond to.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are you really saying that "All She Wants to do is Dance" and "Boys of Summer" are politically motivated works?
All She Wants to Do Is Dance is pretty obviously a commentary on US diplomacy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
With one exception that I know of, Weird Al gets permission for all of his parodies (though not legally required, he does it anyway). In an interview many, many years ago when someone asked him about that he said with that one exception (can't recall who it was now) he said the usual response when he asks is something along the lines of them being upset that he took this long to make one of them.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I looked into it and unfortunately you're mostly right. Emory has an interesting comment on a number of cases. http://www.law.emory.edu/fileadmin/journals/elj/55/2/Rumfelt.pdf [emory.edu] It can get murky, but all too often copyright law is used as the lens to evaluate a case rather than starting with the Constitution.
My knee-jerk reaction is to always defend speech and freedom. I'll have to think about this some more, but I still don't really like most of the legal precedent. I think it's dangerous to allow
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Copyright is part of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8. Copyright does not infringe on free speech. You can say whatever you like without having to use someone else's art to do so.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No. Two separate issues. You do not need to use my art to express yourself, unless you are commenting or parodying it, which are protected. So, you can exercise your free speech without needing to use my works. Stopping you from using my works does not stop you from saying what you want to say.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where copyright is counter to free political speech, copyright gives way.
Wrong. You can still make your message without using someone else's work, so it would in no way infringe your first amendment rights. You don't lose your rights to your own work simply because someone else has a political bone to pick.
You also don't have the right to walk into my house and make a political speech. Your first amendment rights don't "trump" my property rights. You have the right to make your speech in a public place
Re: (Score:2)
> Wrong. You can still make your message without using someone else's work
A rather specious argument.
The whole point of using other people's work for the purposes of parody and satire is that they form what is already a shared cultural language.
In some societies, this sort of "Darmok" discourse is very common.
This "Darmok" problem is why restrictive and expansive copyright is so dangerous. You expand copyright past it's original sane point and suddenly you have problems making any sorts of references to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe in 100% unfettered free speech.
That being said, this isn't a matter of free speech. You're suggesting that I should have the right to freely redistribute Avatar if I accompanied it with political speech.
Any politician has the right to say anything that want about another politician (just in that you should have the right to say anything about me you want), but that doesn't give you the right to breach copyright.
However, there is a seperate debate here about whether or not copyright was breached. I
Re: (Score:2)
If this is satire, it could be fair use.
No, if it is a parody, it could be fair use. As TFA and the summary state if it is ruled a "satire" then it is most likely infringing.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm afraid that there is no such thing as "free political speech". There is just "free speech", or more specifically "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". If you could prove, in a court of law, that copyright was in fact an abridgement of the freedom of speech, that'd be pretty nifty because then no copyrights could exist for anyone. Everyone would be able to use the excuse that someone was exercising their right to free speech when they pirated whatever material they wanted.
O
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_copyright_law [wikipedia.org]
or, alternatively, read the constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's always funniest when they steal "Born in the USA". The entire song is dripping with contempt for all the hypocrisy the Republicans stand for, and they're oblivious to it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll alos just note that I have seen certain Repulicans denouce "Born in the USA" as anti-America. I would disagree and question what America they live in.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I attribute this to the majority of musicians, filmmakers and artists being Democrats. When a Democrat uses a song without paying for it from an artist who is a Democrat, they're not going to complain.
Re:Republicans stealing music again? I'm shocked. (Score:4, Interesting)
Uhhh... citation needed? Do Democrats actually use more songs than Republicans without getting permission first?
Also, allowing someone to use your work for free is a way of contributing to a campaign. Are you saying this is wrong?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When a Democrat uses a song without paying for it from an artist who is a Democrat, they're not going to complain.
So then provide an actual example rather than a vague claim with no actual citation.
Re: (Score:2)
Many of the complaints I've seen uttered aren't in political ads (where I can see a serious copyright case) but rather just coming on stage. Several artists were upset about the music Palin came on stage with, because they didn't want to be associated with her.
Democrats use music in their campaign rallys and conventions as well. I'll bet my paycheck they don't pay to license it.
This is a case where it isn't clear if copyright was violated because the music was re-recorded as satire.
Reading the links above,
Re: (Score:2)
Before I write a possibly longer post, are you really, REALLY saying that "Democrats don't infringe copyright" ?
Re: (Score:2)
Before I write a possibly longer post, are you really, REALLY saying that "Democrats don't infringe copyright" ?
They have not infringed artists copyrights for use in political ads any time in recent memory.
Democrats getting a pass on theft? Yep. (Score:3, Informative)
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because Democrats never get CAUGHT stealing music, doesn't mean they don't steal.
Actually, it's more like: Democrats get whatever they want from their good buddies at the RIAA and get a pass from lefty music artists. The charge never comes up because no lefty musician or music company EVER MAKES IT. (Ya don't eat your own, don't ya know.)
But the moment any Republican uses ANY music by any left-leaning musician, an army of lawyers and Old Media typ
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because Democrats never get CAUGHT stealing music, doesn't mean they don't steal.
Well until you have any actual examples of them stealing music rather than vague claims about how they must be, then your claims might actually carry some weight.
Actually, it's more like: Democrats get whatever they want from their good buddies at the RIAA and get a pass from lefty music artists.
Is this the same RIAA that has a well-known Republican staffer/lobbyist [wikipedia.org] as it's chairman and CEO? And the same RIAA who has made numerous donations to Republican senators and representatives for years? Yeah, let's ignore all that and just pretend that only the Democrats are allies of the RIAA.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't Obama give sweet appointments to a bunch of RIAA lawyers?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/ [wired.com]
That being said, we're veering way off-topic. I maintain my position that both parties usually have dirty hands.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't have evidence, you don't have evidence. Your lack of evidence does not make a very good case, that's the simple fact that I am pointing out. History has taught me to deeply distrust people who make claims with no evidence.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Weeks of hay? I hadn't even heard of this until now, and I was paying some attention to the 2008 campaigns.
Further, now that I look it up, it doesn't seem to be the case that anyone was saying the McCain campaign stole
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL
If a Democratic candidate infringes a liberal-leaning artists copyright, and a Republican tries to "make hay" over it, the determination of which one comes off looking like an ass will be made by who the liberal-leaning artist deicdes to side with. A Republican considering this approach would have to weigh the risk that, knowing the political effect of his/her actions, the artist would choose to side wtih the Democrat even if the original use was copyright infringement.
Re:Republicans stealing music again? I'm shocked. (Score:4, Informative)
It's not quite so clear as far as accusations of "stealing" goes. There is something called compulsive licensing (for example, a radio station playing a music does not have to individually seek permission of the artist; it just has to pay a rate set by law). So, by law, anyone can play the music publicly as long as they pay the license fee set by law, no individualized permission from artists needed (and given the compulsive nature of this licensing, I doubt they can revoke this congress-granted permission; Lessig talks about this as being a case where Congress balanced the rights of copyright holders with public good).
Especially in the McCain campaign case, you will read about the artists returning the license fee—that's because McCain campaign played the music legally and paid the legally set license fee, as required by law. The artists can refuse the fee as a publicity thing if they want, but that doesn't change the fact that McCain campaign fulfilled all its obligations under the law.
Of course, why they would want to promote artists whose political views diverge so far from conservative views is baffling to me, but in any case, the only sense in which the campaign "stole music" is in the sense in which McCain campaign didn't seek permission that they didn't have to seek under the current law (but some people, like Weird Al, do seek such permission even if he doesn't have to, so you could argue it as a matter of courtesy—but not as a matter of law, as "stealing" implies).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Uh, wrong. You don't understand how copyright works. Artists maintain control over their works and can not be forced to distribute licenses. Please, though, cite a source showing how anyone can play anything they like without the artists' consent.
Weird Al is protected because his works are clearly parody, but even so he does the right thing and seeks permission. Unlike the Republicans you are trying, and failing, to defend.
Re:Republicans stealing music again? I'm shocked. (Score:5, Informative)
Let me Google that for you [google.com].
In your defense, I did misspell it. It's "compulsory licensing", not "compulsive licensing". It's a well-established legal practice (it dates from late 19th and early 20th century, when faithful reproduction of a work became easy with radios, etc.).
Read Lessig's Free Culture, if you want to inform yourself properly. He'll explain it better than I can anyway.
Oh, right. Since you can't use Google, here's the link to Free Culture [free-culture.cc] (he has a PDF there).
Re:Republicans stealing music again? I'm shocked. (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly, I think this is what Spun misunderstands. These left-wing bands complaining (eg Heart/Barracuda) when Barracuda was played at Palin rallies is no different from when Sam Moore demanded that Obama stopped using Hold On, I'm Comin. You can't control who plays your song, or who listens to your song.
If a political campaign (as in the case of this story) uses a song in a paid ad, that's a very different case. One can't just conflate these widely disparate examples and come across with a "REPUBLICANS ARE DIRTTY LYING THEIVESS ZOMG!!" conclusion (as a 10 second google finds examples on both sides of the aisle),
I personally find this area tricky and troubling ground. There's so much creativity on Youtube and elsewhere that can just be totally SQUASHED by law. As mentioned in the summary, Downfall is a great example, but in general--music videos, remixes, etc... I think it would be a sad world if we lost all of that.
Re: (Score:2)
This title seems to support Chuck DeVore've claim, that his "theft" is parody — that the pick was based on the views of the authors. Something like: if this perpetually-high lunatic supports my opponents, you all should support me.
In either case, I'd say, political speech should be exempt from even the copyright rules. Otherwise we may, eventually, find that it is impossible to quote any of your opponents and their supporters.
Imag
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What if you write a book, it is sold in bookstores, but it is not taken seriously, and most copies wind up getting destroyed after a while (whether throwing out unsold copies to free up shelf space, or people read them, then tear pages out to use as kindling, or whatever). I bought a copy, however, and I kept it in good condition. Many years later, the book becomes a huge success, and book collectors become interested in the first printing.
Why shouldn't I be allowed to sell my copy to a collector for a trem
Re: (Score:2)
No need to be a dick.
He didn't attack you.
Is there any order of precedence specified for when contradictions crop up in such documents?
Most recent amendment trumps oldest etc or something like that?
Or are all amendments considered equal with it left to the flip of a coin?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, what stunning and clearly fantastic debating skills you have there.
Strawman arguments of course are the best kind.
Ending every attempt at a point with an insult certainly adds real weight to your arguments.
Lets apply your same idiotic strawman to parody then.
I could legally distribute Avatar by tacking on 'Avatar Suck!' at the end.
Which is obviously not the case.
Please engage your brain before making remarks that, with a moment's thought, you would realise are nothing more than bile and logical fallaci
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, read the Constitution if you are confused.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress has the power to create Copyright Law.
vs
Congress will make no law abridging freedom of speech or the press.
Re: (Score:2)
> Laughable ignorance on your part. Copyright is a Constitutional right, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8.
YOU are the only one that anyone should be laughing here.
The "right" defined here is the power of the federal government to make laws regarding a certain public policy concern. There is no "individual right" defined here.
Those are in the Bill of Rights.
How can YOU BE SUCH A MORON when citing the work in question. Did you even bother to read it first?
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech doesn't protect you from getting sued for copyright infringement, especially since it's a private party (not the government) that's suing.
Re:Political speach (Score:5, Insightful)
I was under the impression that for the most part political speech enjoyed a far higher level of protection than most and this seems to fall very clearly into that category.
You are confusing freedom of speech (politically motivated and otherwise) with fair use. Imagine for example (and just for shits and giggles) that during the last presidential elections, the Republican party decides to make a satire of Obama at the tunes of, say, one of Michael Jackson's songs (say, "Beat It".) You could alter the roles with the Democratic party making a satire of McCain/Palin (as well as changing the name of the artist and type of art being used) but the essence is the same - a satire and form of political speech using copyrighted material without parodying the copyrighted material herein used.
It would be legally reasonable that the Jackson's camp would be entitled for monetary fees due to the usage of those songs for purposes other than parodying the song and the artist. The law would recognize the artist' claim (which should not be construed as an attack to freedom of speech.)
As for the analogy with the removal of the Hitler parody videos, I'm sad to see them go, but the law is clear in that satires are not protected in the same way parodies are (wrt of using copyrighted material). None of this should be construed either as an attack to freedom of speech in the form of satire or parody.
Unfortunately, the law is (or seems to be) clear on this. I hope that someday (sooner I hope) the law gets amended so that satires done for non-commercial purposes get the same protection wrt copyrighted materials (at least so that we can all enjoy Hitler going at it for lolcatz sake).
To reiterate (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I would put forth non-comercial and non-political (is there a difference really?) uses. I think it is totally inappropriate to use and artists work to support a cause that the artist is opposed to. If the artist is in favor certainly permission would be given, but it seems like it should be well within the rights of an artist to decide who gets to use their work to further a political career.
Re: (Score:2)
As for the analogy with the removal of the Hitler parody videos, I'm sad to see them go, but the law is clear in that satires are not protected in the same way parodies are (wrt of using copyrighted material). None of this should be construed either as an attack to freedom of speech in the form of satire or parody.
Unfortunately, the law is (or seems to be) clear on this. I hope that someday (sooner I hope) the law gets amended so that satires done for non-commercial purposes get the same protection wrt copyrighted materials (at least so that we can all enjoy Hitler going at it for lolcatz sake).
I like the idea of making a Downfall Hitler rant talking about how all his other rants have been disappeared. He would be all pissed about it, and ranting against copyright law protecting parodies, but not satire.
The funny thing is that it then becomes a parody, and thus actually fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
Political speech is at the core of the first amendment - it has higher protection than "parody," however defined. The main point of fair use is to make copyright law consistent with free speech, so your argument about their confusion doesn't hold water. And the legal distinction between satire and parody is specious. I realize that's the interpretation made by the courts currently but I think it will be amended when it is considered objectively. The point of protecting parody is to allow free speech, an
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I was under the impression that for the most part political speech enjoyed a far higher level of protection than most and this seems to fall very clearly into that category.
I don't think there's any legal precedent concerning freedom of political speech versus possible copyright violation, which is what makes this case interesting and important to watch.
As far as the Downfall bunker scene meme goes, the author is right--almost none of those videos are actual parodies of the movie. They're satire of an entirely different subject, which is not protected as fair use and makes them vulnerable to a takedown notice. I still think the producers are being short-sighted by doing it, ho
..political uses of third-party material.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmm. To a dark place this line of thought will carry us. Great care we must take.
I thought it was pretty simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Parody but don't *use* the original work. When Weird Al makes a song parody (ignore for the moment that he gets permission and probably shares in royalties) he and his team don't just take the original music and sing over it. It's RE-RECORDED. That's the key. You can get away with the similarities and same song composition but you have to at least lift a finger and do the work yourself. You wanna be lazy, then the consequences are paying someone else, either for use of the work or as damages in a lawsuit later.
Re:I thought it was pretty simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Parody but don't *use* the original work. When Weird Al makes a song parody (ignore for the moment that he gets permission and probably shares in royalties) he and his team don't just take the original music and sing over it. It's RE-RECORDED. That's the key. You can get away with the similarities and same song composition but you have to at least lift a finger and do the work yourself. You wanna be lazy, then the consequences are paying someone else, either for use of the work or as damages in a lawsuit later.
Weird Al actually parodies the song itself, so he could talk over it karaoke-style if he wanted to. He's probably re-recording it because it gives his parody a more professional polish and gives him some musical creative freedom. He really doesn't have to do that in order to be parodying the song. I also heard in an interview with him on NPR that, even then, he still seeks permission from every artist he parodies just to avoid any potential legal conflicts (citation needed).
As I understand it, however, even if you re-record someone's music, it's still subject to copyright. The first case that comes to mind is the Coldplay vs. Joe Satriani [mtv.com] lawsuit, where Joe alleged that Coldplay stole some of the melody from one of his songs. In this case, even though Coldplay clearly physically played the music, it was still potentially subject to copyright.
Re:I thought it was pretty simple (Score:4, Informative)
The problem here is that Copyright Law if just poorly thought out, ambiguous, and lacking common sense.
When is one piece of music copying another? When are two pieces of music "different enough" to be considered different pieces of intellectual property? These are actually much more complicated questions than you might think (and this is just talking about music copyright).
All music crosses lines with other music to a certain extent. Check out these two youtube videos for a quick and witty illustration by a couple musicians: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pidokakU4I [youtube.com]
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM [youtube.com]
PS: Also, it's funny how everyone on Slashdot is all of a sudden on the side of the copyright enforcer.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a fairly clear distinction between music used for personal use and music used for political or commercial gain.
Re: (Score:2)
keep in mind, even though he would be protected, Weird Al doesnt want a lawsuit. Recordings are generally owned by record companies and no by the artists themselves. It is likely far easier to get the Artists permission than the recording company.
Re: (Score:2)
By this definition of parody, " a parody comments on the work itself," how many of "Weird" Al's songs would you actually consider a parody. I don't see many of them commenting directly on the song. In fact, they seem a lot more like the definition of satire (according to this article), "a satire uses the work to comment on something else." He used MacArthur Park to comment on Jurassic Park, I Was In Jeopardy to comment on Jeopardy, etc. In other words, by this definition I can use a Lady Gaga song to ma
Re: (Score:2)
how many of "Weird" Al's songs would you actually consider a parody
But gangsters are totally like nerds and the Amish!
Re: (Score:2)
I also heard in an interview with him on NPR that, even then, he still seeks permission from every artist he parodies just to avoid any potential legal conflicts (citation needed).
No citation here either, but I think I remember reading that he asks permission not for legal reasons, but simply because he believes it's polite.
Re: (Score:2)
Al does get permission from the original writers of the songs that he parodies [weirdal.com], even though he doesn't have to. There's your citation. Note that part of this is a pragmatic business move; if he didn't have his paperwork in order, the original artist could sue him to collect the songwriter royalties Weird Al collects from his changed version of each song.
Wrong (Score:2)
In music the composition, the lyrics and the recording are all covered by copyright. You are required to pay royalties for covers and adaptations regardless of whether you use the actual recording.
Re: (Score:2)
You are required to pay royalties for covers and adaptations regardless of whether you use the actual recording
on the flip side, you are apparently allowed to do covers and adaptions regardless of whether the original author wants you to or not. you still have to pay, but they can't stop you from doing it. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/290/must-you-get-permission-to-record-someone-elses-song [straightdope.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Proposed Test for Infringement (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Great! So now my movie entitled Star Wars: The Musical can proceed as planned; it serves a different function, so it obviously should be considered fair use!
Absolutely! Imagine two theaters side-by-side, one showing Star Wars, the movie, and the other showing "Star Wars:The Musical". Do you really think both would attract the same demographic?
Re: (Score:2)
Does the "derivative work" function as a substitute for the original work? If it serves a different function, it should be considered fair use.
"Well, the original was a song, meant to entertain and sell records. My rip-off is meant to get people to purchase my t-shirts and coffee mugs, so it's a different function. Fair use!"
Re: (Score:2)
Does the "derivative work" function as a substitute for the original work? If it serves a different function, it should be considered fair use.
"Well, the original was a song, meant to entertain and sell records. My rip-off is meant to get people to purchase my t-shirts and coffee mugs, so it's a different function. Fair use!"
If you can demonstrate that playing your "rip-off" functions more effectively to get people to purchase your t-shirts and coffee mugs than the original, whereas one would choose to play the original to entertain and sell records, then, by all means it is fair use.
I can understand why Henley is pissed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What? How on earth does using this tune imply that Henley has anything to do with it? It is clearly meant to be silly. I had difficulty understanding what the heck you were talking about...
Then I saw you start to drift to talk about ripping off conservative's music (what?) and then onto demon sheep political advertisments (how is that relevant?) and then on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole question is based on a false assumption. (Score:2)
There is no point in concepts like “fair use”, since the base concept that you couldn’t use known information is absurd and physically impossible in the first place. If you know it, you can always and without exception use it. If you don’t you can’t prove it even exists (without revealing it).
It seems that: In western culture the parody is the LAW. ;))
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No problem (Score:2)
I flipped on this one to support the musician (Score:3, Insightful)
After reading a bit more about this I suprised myself by changing my mind. My first knee-jerk reaction was that the videos were ok because they were parodys/satire.
But basically if this was allowed, you could use any music for any video you make whatsoever, and claim it is a satire/parody. Maybe you are required to insert at least one insult, about a random subject, into the video, so it is a "satire or parody". This would completely defeat copyright and certainly is not a good idea.
However that if Boxer had officially used one of these songs in their own videos (after paying for the rights, as required), somebody parodying the Boxer ad can use a parody version of that same song. I believe this was done by conservatives on some Obama attacks. More to the point here, a joke video about Windows using a Rolling Stones "start it up" parody would be allowed, since that was part of the Windows advertisement, but use of a different Rolling Stones song that Microsoft did not use is not allowed.
Dangerous Precendent (Score:2, Insightful)
That's quite a dangerous stretch counselor. If that were so, it would follow that usage of copyrighted works would depend on how much the holder's political leanings coincide with the person being mocked.
Go For It! (Score:2)
Don Henley must die (Score:3, Funny)
No really! [lala.com]
Re: (Score:2)
When I think of parody the first thing that comes to mind is Weird Al, and I can't really recall any of his songs commenting on the original work itself.
"Smells Like Nirvana" and "This Song's Just Six Words Long" are like that, I think. Maybe others.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When I think of parody the first thing that comes to mind is Weird Al, and I can't really recall any of his songs commenting on the original work itself.
Many of his songs actually do - "This Song Is Just Six Words Long" and "Smells Like Nirvana" both come to mind right off the top of my head.
But that doesn't matter from a legal perspective because Yankovic and his label don't rely on legal definitions of Fair Use for his work. He actually goes out and gets permission from the rights holders before making a
Re: (Score:2)
First, I think you have the wrong thread.
Second, it took until the 3rd line of your post for me to realize that, for a while I thought you were making some clever, insightful comment about our inhuman political overlords.
Re:Legal "satire" vs. literary "satire"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course both songs were written and recorded over 20 years ago, they should both be in the public domain by now if copyright had a reasonable duration (Ok I would consider it reasonable if their copyright expired in 2012).
Personally, I think this case is a perfect example of why copyright should be shorter. These songs sum up the message that DeVore wants to convey about Barbara Boxer and our culture would be much richer if such songs could be used for the purpose intended here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No one said that satire is illegal. What was said is that using someone else's copyrighted material without permission as part of the satire is not protected by fair use. Big, BIG difference.
- Using clips of a movie to make fun of that movie = parody = fair use
- Using clips of a movie to make fun of something else entirely = satire = not fair use
You can agree or disagree with the above, but that's where the courts currently stand on the issue.
(As an aside, Twain, et al, didn't use other people's copyrigh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Penny Arcade would have had to cut out & scan an ad for a Ford Explorer, then paste it next to a images of Wall Street fat cats, with a subtitle referencing lax financial regulatory systems and failed economic management, then claim that they were also mocking the quality of American-made vehicles.
You had the choice between talking about a redheaded dominatrix and a car analogy, and you went with the car analogy? I know this is Slashdot, but some things are sacred! Like redheads in leather.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the redheaded dominatrix in Tomcats [imdb.com] (ok, not truly a dominatrix), one has to be careful of what wishes for. Especially when granny is around.
Re:The Penny Arcade-Strawberry Shortcake comic? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, you, and the general public at large, might see them as different, legally they are not. If you take a Mickey Mouse comic from way back when, and just copy it with a new word bubble, obviously copyright violation, right? If you draw your own character that looks sort of like Mickey Mouse? That's just as much copyright violation, even if you drew every last pen stroke yourself. Fair use, which includes review and parody, is a defense against copyright violation via derivative work. Penny Arcade got in trouble because drawing Strawberry Shortcake is a copyright violation, and fair use is their only possible defense. However, fair use does not allow for making copies of one person's copyright to parody a third-party. Their own lawyers told them that, and they took it down. That's the law.
Mind you, the law is subject to change. Twenty years ago judges verbally berated Sega and Nintendo lawyers on separate occasions for abuse of copyright law. Nintendo tried to sue Game Genie for allowing owners to modify their game code. The judges said that people are free to enjoy their purchase any way they want, and artists have no right to dictate how their works are enjoyed. This opinion is now scoffed at, and artists very much do somehow have the right to dictate how purchasers of their works are allowed to enjoy them. Sega, on the other hand, like Nintendo, used early early DRM to lock out third party game carts on their consoles. They sued Accolade for copyright violation for cracking the DRM. A judge got very angry with them, calling them monopolists and dismissing with prejudice, saying no law permits them to lock people out of their hardware. Now of course, there is such a law, and nobody bats an eye at locked down systems. Crazy that only 20 years ago the very idea was disgusting, and now you're a madman for objecting.
That may seem off-topic, but both those cases were about derivative works. Game Genie was about the right of the consumer to create their own derivative works, which we're now told we do not have. Though we're told by RIAA/MPAA/TV execs, and might possibly still have that right, if you find a judge who will follow the law. And the Sega case was about the right to reverse engineer for compatibility, which we certainly no longer have. Well, except the DMCA, which outlawed it in the first place, has exceptions for compatibility, but those exemptions to not stop Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft, from suing anyway. So, while parody defenses are pretty set, so were those rights, and they changed, though perhaps not legally... Precedent is just a suggestion. In the unlikely event that a judge allows wholesale copying of third-party copyright material in unrelated parodies, that's a hidden boon for The Pirate Bay, which would quickly be renamed to The Parody Bay, and totally legal! Just put a quick mockery of your political figure of choice into your torrent description, and the download along side it is protected as a fair use parody! ;)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
An article about parody videos with music set to lyrics mocking someone, and the first thing you thought of was a comic strip? I immediately thought of Weird Al Yankovic and how screwed he'd be if they're found to be infringing. [youtube.com]
He's probably OK, as he does secure the necessary recording rights for the songs (which requires indirect payment to the songwriters through a clearinghouse).
If he then copies the look of the video, he's OK because he can then separately parody the video safely, since the audio portion is already either licensed or covered by a separate parody. Most of his non-original songs are of this double parody variety.
I suspect the main issue in this case was they didn't pay the fee that allows them to record the so
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, really? So you think the only people entitled to free speech are those who aren't in the position to be heard?
Hah! Yeah, nothing political about those topics :-/
Re: (Score:2)