Universal Uses DMCA To Get Bad Lip Reading Parody Taken Down 298
Joren writes "Bad Lip Reading is an independent producer known for anonymously parodying music and political videos by redubbing them with his humorous attempts at lip-reading, such as Everybody Poops (Black Eyed Peas) and Gang Fight (Rebecca Black). According to an interview in Rolling Stone, he creates entirely new music from scratch consisting of his bad lip readings, and then sets them to the original video, often altering the video for humorous effect and always posting a link to the original off which it is based. Although his efforts have won the respect of parody targets Michael Bublé and Michelle Bachman, not everyone has been pleased. Two days ago, Universal Music Group succeeded in getting his parody Dirty Spaceman taken down from YouTube, and despite BLR's efforts to appeal, in his words, 'UMG essentially said "We don't care if you think it's fair use, we want it down."' And YouTube killed it. So does this meet the definition of parody as a form of fair use? And if so, what recourse if any is available for artists who are caught in this situation?"
It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:5, Insightful)
...and argue that it is, which a private individual rarely has the resources to do.
Got to love the legal system.
Bought congress (Score:3, Insightful)
These are the kinds of laws we get when we let companies (via their lobbyists) write their own legislation.
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:5, Insightful)
Streisand the hell out of it! (Score:5, Insightful)
This must not stand!
Repost the video!
Counter notice? (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't he just file a counter-notice? I though in that case Youtube would be obligated to put it back up and instead force UMG to sue if they don't agree?
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:4, Insightful)
... then Google is 100% off the hook, so they have no reason not to put the video back up.
Sure, as long as you ignore the money reasons, Google has no reason not to put the video back up.
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:4, Insightful)
Uh except that you could go to court yourself. And if you are accused of a crime you get a free lawyer if you can't afford one.
Which has no bearing on this topic
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure ... so long as you remake the video as well as the audio, eg. Mad Al Yankovitch.
As it is he's using somebody else's video for profit (direct or indirect)
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:5, Insightful)
The need for lawyers who have studied for years or decades indicates that our legal system is too complex. There are so many laws, there exist laws that even the best lawyers are unaware of. There is a huge amount of case law that many times, but not always, provides direction in cases that are ambiguous in the law. We have laws from 2011 that override some part of laws from 2003 that override some part of laws from 1987 that override some part of laws from 1972, etc. to the beginning of time. I don't know the solution to all of this, but I think there has to be one.
And the free lawyer is rarely as good as the paid lawyer. Otherwise, they would be working for higher pay in the private sector.
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if you are accused of a crime
Violating copyright isn't a criminal case in most cases. And you don't get a free lawyer for civil court cases.
Re:Kickstarter that badboy. (Score:5, Insightful)
Google has no right to decide whether it's a parody or not. That's up to the courts. If they receive a DMCA complaint, they have to take it down. If they didn't, Youtube wouldn't exist by now.
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:4, Insightful)
Another of the 1% (Score:2, Insightful)
Add this to the list of problems with the 1% that need to be corrected. The entire issue of intellectual property needs to be overhauled in the Constitution 2.0.
Re:It's only fair use if you go to court... (Score:4, Insightful)
He had an invasion (not illegal), wiped out all his legal crops leaving only the crops he knew to be patent protected, and then used the patent protected crops to almost exclusively plant his next year's crops. He knew he was breaking patent law.
He was breaking the law? So fucking what? I seriously hope you don't actually believe that seeds should be protected as trade secrets, let alone controlled to the extent that Monsanto does. If anything, you just helped to illustrate exactly why no one trusts Monsanto. They want to control something as simple as food and create a Soylent Green-esque future of poverty-stricken riots and rations.