Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate(rebelliouspixels.com)
rebelliouspixels.com
Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate
http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/2013/buffy-vs-edward-remix-unfairly-removed-by-lionsgate
12 comments
This article is actually worth reading. It's actually written by somebody who knows what they are talking about.
But what does it mean? What is an official recommendation by the Copyright Office - an actual license to reuse stuff? Or just a recommendation with no legal consequences at all?
So artists are supposed to create works employing fair use, and then hope they'll get a recommendation by the Copyright Office? If yes, they can publish their work, if no, they'll have to trash it?
So artists are supposed to create works employing fair use, and then hope they'll get a recommendation by the Copyright Office? If yes, they can publish their work, if no, they'll have to trash it?
The article links to an independently hosted HTML5 copy of the video, in case you want to see it first-hand. It's very cleverly done, quite amusing (at least if you're a Buffy fan), and definitely looks like fair-use:
http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo
http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo
I was a fan of Pop-Up Video so I enjoy the aesthetic.
Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen this video before. It's really well done, and indeed is an original and convincing critique of the insufferable Twilight series. This sort of speech can only take place in a context of fair use. They had to show Ed's pasty mug so they could stake him.
Man, those textual pop-ups are annoying!
ADDED. Version without the pop-ups: http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_36...
ADDED. Version without the pop-ups: http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_36...
>Man, those textual pop-ups are annoying!
Amen. I find it hard to get upset about the takedown notice when I want to take it down for melting my eyes. Perhaps this is unfair of me, but there it is. Thanks for the clutter-free link.
Amen. I find it hard to get upset about the takedown notice when I want to take it down for melting my eyes. Perhaps this is unfair of me, but there it is. Thanks for the clutter-free link.
That was a tech demo for popcorn.js, showing how you could replicate the popup video feel. The bubbles are overlaid on top of the html5 video and controlled through javascript.
I think there is a real possibility that this maneuver could blow up in Liongate's face. Presumably there are some important decision-makers who take the argument for fair use seriously: that's why this dispute process exists in the first place. This video is an exemplar of what normal non-lawyer people would classify as fair use, if they're familiar with the concept at all. If Liongate's lawyers are willing to get in the mud over a few ad dollars (rather than the high-sounding crap we usually hear from the content industry), and they get their way, then clearly the system requires more protection for fair use. They might not have run this plan by all the suits at MPAA.
Basically it looks like YouTube is too scared of lawsuits to acknowledge any fair use rights exist at all. Either you agree with ads, or your content is getting removed, the whole appeals process may work only if the content is not actually copyrighted, but is completely useless for fair use grounds as claimant can just repeat their claim of copyright ownership (which is true) and have it deleted anyway.
What it looks like to me is that YouTube refuses to play the role of the judge.
The role of YouTube in this dispute has been simply to provide a platform for the parties to work it out. YouTube is not the organization that is denying the fair use claim, Lionsgate is.
The role of YouTube in this dispute has been simply to provide a platform for the parties to work it out. YouTube is not the organization that is denying the fair use claim, Lionsgate is.
except youtube is biased against the claimee and the system favours the claimer.
The most likely reason would be because otherwise, the claimer's lobby groups could put pressure on youtube to do more than it currently does (say, they can no longer claim safe habour under DMCA). The claimee are the little guys, and they while large in numbgers, have little to no power in affecting youtube's policy.
So its all down to money and economics. Therefore, a reasonable way to force youtube's hand is to make a big deal out of it, get as many people involved so that youtube feels more threatened by the actions of these small time remixers.
The most likely reason would be because otherwise, the claimer's lobby groups could put pressure on youtube to do more than it currently does (say, they can no longer claim safe habour under DMCA). The claimee are the little guys, and they while large in numbgers, have little to no power in affecting youtube's policy.
So its all down to money and economics. Therefore, a reasonable way to force youtube's hand is to make a big deal out of it, get as many people involved so that youtube feels more threatened by the actions of these small time remixers.
I think fear has little to do with it. They put in an automatic system because of the fact that they need to deal with so many claims.
It's not that they fail to acknowledge fair use, it's that they err on the side of being restrictive in every situation because the law tells them to do so. When a DMCA takedown is filed they need to respond by removing the purportedly offending content. It's not their responsibility to mediate or investigate the claim. The number of takedown notices submitted also make that impossible.
On the other hand, laws exist to prevent people from submitting takedown notices in bad faith. Lionsgate doesn't have a claim of copyright ownership, the author has copyright. The author uses materials that were authored in a production that Lionsgate now has rights to, but the new production is a new work that uses elements that it has legal right to use.
I think that the fact that they once claimed audiovisual copyright and then dropped that when the term expired and claimed a second time for visual copyright is evidence that they are abusing the automated controls of youtube and acting in bad faith. If they weren't, they would have been justified in delivering a legal copyright notification to have the video taken down when the first appeal was filed.
Instead they dropped the claim and issued another, slightly different claim to abuse the mandated automated system.
It's not that they fail to acknowledge fair use, it's that they err on the side of being restrictive in every situation because the law tells them to do so. When a DMCA takedown is filed they need to respond by removing the purportedly offending content. It's not their responsibility to mediate or investigate the claim. The number of takedown notices submitted also make that impossible.
On the other hand, laws exist to prevent people from submitting takedown notices in bad faith. Lionsgate doesn't have a claim of copyright ownership, the author has copyright. The author uses materials that were authored in a production that Lionsgate now has rights to, but the new production is a new work that uses elements that it has legal right to use.
I think that the fact that they once claimed audiovisual copyright and then dropped that when the term expired and claimed a second time for visual copyright is evidence that they are abusing the automated controls of youtube and acting in bad faith. If they weren't, they would have been justified in delivering a legal copyright notification to have the video taken down when the first appeal was filed.
Instead they dropped the claim and issued another, slightly different claim to abuse the mandated automated system.
>On the other hand, laws exist to prevent people from submitting takedown notices in bad faith.
Realistically these laws are hard if not impossible to enforce. There's absolutely nothing stopping someone from filing a fake DMCA under a fake name and getting absolutely no retribution for their actions. Ask any up and coming YouTube content creator and they'll probably tell you they've been hit with fake DMCAs in the past, which immediately results in the user's video getting pulled.
After that point, the damage is done. Even if it comes back later, especially if the content is time sensitive, the troll won.
Considering that you have to prove actual bad faith (rather than just negligence) and have to have someone's actual identity to initiate a DMCA countersuit, the protection offered in the internet age is laughable.
Realistically these laws are hard if not impossible to enforce. There's absolutely nothing stopping someone from filing a fake DMCA under a fake name and getting absolutely no retribution for their actions. Ask any up and coming YouTube content creator and they'll probably tell you they've been hit with fake DMCAs in the past, which immediately results in the user's video getting pulled.
After that point, the damage is done. Even if it comes back later, especially if the content is time sensitive, the troll won.
Considering that you have to prove actual bad faith (rather than just negligence) and have to have someone's actual identity to initiate a DMCA countersuit, the protection offered in the internet age is laughable.
Google is full of smart people, certainly they could set up a system in which some videos are manually flagged as controversial but allowed specifically for situations like this, particularly in cases in which previous take-downs were successfully overturned.
There is no "controversial" in this kind of case. Either it's legal, or it's not.
There is no "kinda legal but maybe not".
While the inputs are not binary, the output definitely is.
So either Google has to decide that, or they have to let others hash it out. Youtube doesn't prevent you from, for example, all banding together and suing Lionsgate in a class action.
You could also try personal suits for tortuous interference with contractual relationships (Lionsgate is deliberately interfering with your relationship with Youtube). It may be viable in some states (others, definitely not).
There are plenty of options here, youtube shouldn't be deciding this stuff any more than anyone else (for example github complies with DMCA requests, and counter-notifications, despite what they think of the actual situation).
So either Google has to decide that, or they have to let others hash it out. Youtube doesn't prevent you from, for example, all banding together and suing Lionsgate in a class action.
You could also try personal suits for tortuous interference with contractual relationships (Lionsgate is deliberately interfering with your relationship with Youtube). It may be viable in some states (others, definitely not).
There are plenty of options here, youtube shouldn't be deciding this stuff any more than anyone else (for example github complies with DMCA requests, and counter-notifications, despite what they think of the actual situation).
I'm not talking about things that are "kinda legal", I'm talking about situations where:
Guy uploads item that is clear to anyone with a brain is fair use.
Studio X files DMCA to Google.
Google automatically disables the video
Guy fights to reinstate the video, gets approval, video is re approved.
(So far this is what happens now, according to this guy's account)
But at the point where the video is re approved Google should flag the video such that it was previously auto-disabled and found to be not infringing and thus redirect any future DMCAs on it to the manual review pile instead of the automatic pile.
This would curtail studios using the automatic takedown process to fuck with people while adding a fairly minimal amount of work to Google's pile since most of the items that are taken down through the automatic DMCA process won't get re-approved in the first place.
Guy uploads item that is clear to anyone with a brain is fair use.
Studio X files DMCA to Google.
Google automatically disables the video
Guy fights to reinstate the video, gets approval, video is re approved.
(So far this is what happens now, according to this guy's account)
But at the point where the video is re approved Google should flag the video such that it was previously auto-disabled and found to be not infringing and thus redirect any future DMCAs on it to the manual review pile instead of the automatic pile.
This would curtail studios using the automatic takedown process to fuck with people while adding a fairly minimal amount of work to Google's pile since most of the items that are taken down through the automatic DMCA process won't get re-approved in the first place.
So, something is not non-infringing just because someone drops a single DMCA claim.
Sadly, even in that case, the future DMCA's are just as valid, and Google would likely be just as liable, even if they are doing it abusively.
Again, the abuse is something to get a judge to look at, not Google.
Without a declaratory judgement of non-infringement in hand, there is actually nothing to say it's non-infringing, all you've done is get someone to drop a DMCA claim.
Sadly, even in that case, the future DMCA's are just as valid, and Google would likely be just as liable, even if they are doing it abusively.
Again, the abuse is something to get a judge to look at, not Google.
Without a declaratory judgement of non-infringement in hand, there is actually nothing to say it's non-infringing, all you've done is get someone to drop a DMCA claim.
That's absurd. Youtube provided extensive avenues of dispute and appeal. I think Lionsgate is wrong in this case (although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view), but Youtube isn't there to act as a court or arbitrator. by law, it has to respect the claims of copyright holders. It is not the agent of those seeking to use copyrighted material on fair use grounds. The authors dispute is with Lionsgate, not YouTube.
Youtube is respecting the claims of copyright holders a lot more than it has to by law.
1. The entire pre-DMCA-takedown process (the first round of complaint and appeal) is not required by law. I think it's a good idea in general (it's nice to have a low-stakes option before you launch into the DMCA process) but the immediate presumption that the complainant is in the right is offensive. Something like "we will start displaying ads if you do not dispute within 24 hours" would sit a lot better.
2. Once the DMCA process has started, the poster was required to go through Youtube's "copyright school", and was limited to posting only short videos. I wish they would wait until one or the other party lost the dispute before doling out punishment and education.
Youtube is within its rights to behave this way, but it's Youtube's choice, not something required by law.
1. The entire pre-DMCA-takedown process (the first round of complaint and appeal) is not required by law. I think it's a good idea in general (it's nice to have a low-stakes option before you launch into the DMCA process) but the immediate presumption that the complainant is in the right is offensive. Something like "we will start displaying ads if you do not dispute within 24 hours" would sit a lot better.
2. Once the DMCA process has started, the poster was required to go through Youtube's "copyright school", and was limited to posting only short videos. I wish they would wait until one or the other party lost the dispute before doling out punishment and education.
Youtube is within its rights to behave this way, but it's Youtube's choice, not something required by law.
These seem like valid but relatively minor complaints. YouTube should fix them. But the heart of the problem lives in the DMCA. If jerks or idiots file a fraudulent DMCA take down, the content comes down before you have a chance to dispute it. Then, even if you do dispute it... the DMCA says it stays down for at least 10 days. Ostensibly to give the claimant an opportunity to file a lawsuit against you, but there is no requirement that they actually do this, and your perfectly non-infringing content remains unavailable even if they never had any intention of doing so. (And if they do file a lawsuit then it stays down even longer... even though they've done nothing but file paperwork and have yet to prove anything whatsoever.)
And then, after your content has been down for a week and a half and finally goes back up, any new set of jerks (or as we saw here, maybe even just the same old jerks) can come along and file another takedown against the same content and it goes back down for another ten days or more.
I would say that it's amazing it doesn't see more abuse, except that it does. SEO companies and similar such scumbags regularly file fraudulent takedowns against their competitors. As far as I can discern, the process Hollywood employs to decide what to issue a takedown for comprises some combination of untrained monkeys and a random number generator. Wendy Seltzer wrote a paper detailing a whole slew of other such issues a couple years ago[1] but still nothing has been done to address it.
[1] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1577785
And then, after your content has been down for a week and a half and finally goes back up, any new set of jerks (or as we saw here, maybe even just the same old jerks) can come along and file another takedown against the same content and it goes back down for another ten days or more.
I would say that it's amazing it doesn't see more abuse, except that it does. SEO companies and similar such scumbags regularly file fraudulent takedowns against their competitors. As far as I can discern, the process Hollywood employs to decide what to issue a takedown for comprises some combination of untrained monkeys and a random number generator. Wendy Seltzer wrote a paper detailing a whole slew of other such issues a couple years ago[1] but still nothing has been done to address it.
[1] http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1577785
I agree wholeheartedly about the shortcomings of the DMCA, and am not sure what sort of equitable mechanism could make those problems go away.
We could start by not making censorship the default: If a notice is received, notify the poster of the video that it will be removed in e.g. 24 hours if they don't submit a counter notice. Then it comes down after the grace period if they don't identify themselves and file a counter notice consenting to the jurisdiction of at least one U.S. federal district court, but if they do then the content stays up until a court says otherwise. And given that filing a counter notice is a de facto invitation to be sued, infringers who submit them improperly will have to answer for it in court, which should reduce the number of people willing to do so. On the other hand, in cases like the one in question here, the facts will have to go through the copyright holder's actual lawyers and a federal judge before any censorship occurs, which should do a good job stamping out fraudulent take downs as well.
In reality this is how the legal system works for almost everything else: First you ask nicely, and if the parties can't agree then you go to court. But in most cases the party in the wrong (at least in theory) knows that they'll lose in court and so concedes immediately and everything works as it ought to without taxing the court system.
In reality this is how the legal system works for almost everything else: First you ask nicely, and if the parties can't agree then you go to court. But in most cases the party in the wrong (at least in theory) knows that they'll lose in court and so concedes immediately and everything works as it ought to without taxing the court system.
> although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view
It's a bit of a side track, but: Any commentary on a work could reasonably be expected to feature that work substantially, couldn't it?
It's a bit of a side track, but: Any commentary on a work could reasonably be expected to feature that work substantially, couldn't it?
I think there's a difference between quoting something in a review or as part of a presentation about film theory (or whatever), and quoting it in the context of a remix, where you're essentially engaging in fan-fiction first and commentary as a distant second (because the commentary is implicit and arguably subordinate to the entertainment function).
Now I am in favor of fairly wide latitude for this sort of reuse, which is a big reason I favor much, much shorter copyright terms, and graduated copyright at that (eg exclusive for 20 years, mandatory cheap licensing for the next 30, PD after that - for example). But it's hard to ignore the rightsholder's concern that this work is less about commentary than simply hitching a ride on a currently-popular franchise. It's not cashing in, since the person isn't trying to monetize it directly, but the person is trying to build their creative reputation from rearrangement of others' work, while denying any and all revenue to the original creator.
As someone who has spent the last decade making films from scratch rather than remixing others' work, I think this is pretty weak sauce, just as I think that DJing falls far short of musicianship. I engage in both activities, but when I'm DJing I don't consider that to be creatively equivalent to composing something original. People who say all creativity is fungible are lying to themselves.
Now I am in favor of fairly wide latitude for this sort of reuse, which is a big reason I favor much, much shorter copyright terms, and graduated copyright at that (eg exclusive for 20 years, mandatory cheap licensing for the next 30, PD after that - for example). But it's hard to ignore the rightsholder's concern that this work is less about commentary than simply hitching a ride on a currently-popular franchise. It's not cashing in, since the person isn't trying to monetize it directly, but the person is trying to build their creative reputation from rearrangement of others' work, while denying any and all revenue to the original creator.
As someone who has spent the last decade making films from scratch rather than remixing others' work, I think this is pretty weak sauce, just as I think that DJing falls far short of musicianship. I engage in both activities, but when I'm DJing I don't consider that to be creatively equivalent to composing something original. People who say all creativity is fungible are lying to themselves.
> I think this is pretty weak sauce ... DJing falls far short of musicianship.
Why do you think this? A good remix requires just as much ingenuity, just as much creative juices, as an original work. In fact, a remix might require even more ingenuity, because of the constraints of the remix. Of course, there are people who claim to be remixing, but is just putting things thoughtly side by side. But then again, you have original works that are also rubbish.
To me, the eye of the law should treat remix and originals exactly the same - works in their own right. A remix may have derivative works from else where, but as long as it is fair use to a reasonable person, it should be considered as an original.
Why do you think this? A good remix requires just as much ingenuity, just as much creative juices, as an original work. In fact, a remix might require even more ingenuity, because of the constraints of the remix. Of course, there are people who claim to be remixing, but is just putting things thoughtly side by side. But then again, you have original works that are also rubbish.
To me, the eye of the law should treat remix and originals exactly the same - works in their own right. A remix may have derivative works from else where, but as long as it is fair use to a reasonable person, it should be considered as an original.
While a remix, it is also commentary on the work itself.
If that was the case, RiffTrax would be in the clear for releasing all their voiceovers with the original movies :)
Rifftrax is commercial, this is not
Rifftrax is additive, not transformitive
The person designated by the federal government to recommend who is exempt from DMCA restrictions recommended this work by name as an example of a work that would be hurt by not having exemptions to Decryption prohibitions. They considered it a valuable documentary.
>“Based on the video evidence presented, the Register is able to conclude that diminished quality likely would impair the criticism and comment contained in noncommercial videos. For example, the Register is able to perceive that Buffy vs Edward and other noncommercial videos would suffer significantly because of blurring and the loss of detail in characters’ expression and sense of depth.” -Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, October 2012 (Page 133) Maria Pellante
Rifftrax is additive, not transformitive
The person designated by the federal government to recommend who is exempt from DMCA restrictions recommended this work by name as an example of a work that would be hurt by not having exemptions to Decryption prohibitions. They considered it a valuable documentary.
>“Based on the video evidence presented, the Register is able to conclude that diminished quality likely would impair the criticism and comment contained in noncommercial videos. For example, the Register is able to perceive that Buffy vs Edward and other noncommercial videos would suffer significantly because of blurring and the loss of detail in characters’ expression and sense of depth.” -Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, October 2012 (Page 133) Maria Pellante
What's wrong with plain old writing? No reason to use any of the work at all imo. Video editing takes an insane amount of time in my experience.
Different mediums touch people in different ways. It was a labor of love to produce the work no doubt.
Well maybe, but I don't see why that gives the author the right to use someone else's work.
AFAIK transcribing the movie could also be copyright infringement. You're effectively reproducing a portion of their work either way -- one in text form, the other in video form. Fortunately for critics, both are widely held to be fair use if done purely for the purpose of commentary and not done excessively.
Quote and use screengrabs or short clips sure. 100% of your 'commentary' is composed of the original material, questionable imo.
I think Lionsgate is wrong in this case (although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my view) ...
Please see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5033525 above.
Please see http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5033525 above.
I read that, and am still not fully convinced; the Register's comment was normative rather than descriptive, and while I think that's how things should be in law you have to deal with things as they are.
Takedowns on YouTube are, for corporations such as the record labels and movie studios, largely done under their ContentID system, not under the DMCA notice system. Google has a reputedly poor process for disputes that can lead to DMCA notices [1], but here it appears that the takedown was still ContentID rather than DMCA.
This is the one-sided system that the free market got us, where Google facilitates the removal of legal material. If you are lucky, you can get to the point where you follow the DMCA's rules.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/youtube-finally-o...
This is the one-sided system that the free market got us, where Google facilitates the removal of legal material. If you are lucky, you can get to the point where you follow the DMCA's rules.
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/youtube-finally-o...
So they got advertisment money based off something that was 2/3 content owned by another big media company?
Making money doesn't mean "not fair use." Just like not making money doesn't mean "fair use."
By 'they' I mean Lionsgate.
For a period the video was up, but with advertisement revenue going to Lionsgate. They were getting revenue from something that was largely someone else's copyright. In spirit, if they think they should be getting money, then Buffy's copyright holders should too.
Of course, neither should automatically be getting revenue, fair use and all.
For a period the video was up, but with advertisement revenue going to Lionsgate. They were getting revenue from something that was largely someone else's copyright. In spirit, if they think they should be getting money, then Buffy's copyright holders should too.
Of course, neither should automatically be getting revenue, fair use and all.
> Of course, neither should automatically be getting revenue, fair use and all.
that's not true - the author of the work should get revenue should they decide to (but only if they decide to). Lionsgate is not the author of the work. Some components of the work are from the copyrighted works owned by lionsgate, but that is due to fair use, and thus lionsgate has no claim on the copyright of the remix containing some of their stuff.
Fair use does not mean no revenue (nor does revenue even come into the argument!).
that's not true - the author of the work should get revenue should they decide to (but only if they decide to). Lionsgate is not the author of the work. Some components of the work are from the copyrighted works owned by lionsgate, but that is due to fair use, and thus lionsgate has no claim on the copyright of the remix containing some of their stuff.
Fair use does not mean no revenue (nor does revenue even come into the argument!).
By neither I mean Liongate and the owners of Buffy.
So the owners of Buffy have every right to sue Liongate if they do not pay up.
Which "they" are you referring to, Lionsgate?
Correct.
In all fairness, many people aren't going to want to watch, read, or associate themselves with Twilight after viewing this video.
>In all fairness, many people aren't going to want to watch, read, or associate themselves with Twilight after viewing this video.
Which is exactly the point. The purpose of copyright is not censorship. That's why parody and criticism are the core of fair use.
I think the fair use factor that talks about the effect on the market for the work is kind of confusing if you don't have the context of the associated court decisions: It refers to whether the allegedly infringing work competes with the original, not whether it makes everyone stop buying the original through effective criticism.
Which is exactly the point. The purpose of copyright is not censorship. That's why parody and criticism are the core of fair use.
I think the fair use factor that talks about the effect on the market for the work is kind of confusing if you don't have the context of the associated court decisions: It refers to whether the allegedly infringing work competes with the original, not whether it makes everyone stop buying the original through effective criticism.
I was wondering if Twilight was really that bad or if they had cherry-picked dialog. Every moment cut in from Twilight was painful.
...and after seeing that Lionsgate is abusing my country's legal system like this, I will be sure not to give them a single cent of my money. If these companies want to know what it really means to "lose sales," we should show them by boycotting.
While I agree categorically with the necessity of allowing fair use, and the perniciousness of copyright cartels, I was nonetheless very tickled by this whine:
>But sure enough when I checked my channel, Lionsgate was monetizing my noncommercial fair use remix with ads for Nordstrom fall fashions which popped up over top of my gender critique of pop culture vampires.
>But sure enough when I checked my channel, Lionsgate was monetizing my noncommercial fair use remix with ads for Nordstrom fall fashions which popped up over top of my gender critique of pop culture vampires.
Google needs a policy against doing evil.
Doesn't look like fair-use to me.
The rebelliouspixels version, with its extensive on-screen critique is fair-use since it appears to be a critique. But if the original YouTube version lacked that, then the video devolves into little more than a fanfic video by a Buffy-loving Twilight-hater.
Even the rebelliouspixels version appears to contain far more "quoting" of the original material than is needed for its critique.
The rebelliouspixels version, with its extensive on-screen critique is fair-use since it appears to be a critique. But if the original YouTube version lacked that, then the video devolves into little more than a fanfic video by a Buffy-loving Twilight-hater.
Even the rebelliouspixels version appears to contain far more "quoting" of the original material than is needed for its critique.
Where are you getting your definition of "Fair Use?"
From: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/...
"What Is Fair Use?
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner....
Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody....
A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to “conjure up” the original. "
From: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/...
"What Is Fair Use?
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner....
Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody....
A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to “conjure up” the original. "
> This past summer, together with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I even screened the remix for the US Copyright Office at the 2012 hearings on exemptions to the DMCA. Afterward my Buffy vs Edward remix was mentioned by name in the official recommendations by the US Copyright Office on exemptions to the DMCA as an example of a transformative noncommercial video work.
It's definitely fair use.
It's definitely fair use.
Was the screening with the on-screen captions?
As to that, I have no idea. However, I would argue that the video is absolutely fair use even without the captions. Ignoring that its status as a critique is not strictly necessary for it to be fair use, the video would still be a critique without blatantly spelling out its point in words.
It's surprising how much weight the community gave your opinion, because the truth is that it really doesn't matter what your opinion is.
My comment isn't meant to be snarky; it's meant to point out the /ultimate/ absurdity of our copyright system - that you literally /cannot determine/ if something is or is not fair use without a judgment. As in a judge.
So while you make important points about the presence or absence of commentary, the fact that the video was transformed /at all/ means that it's no longer a determinable question.
My comment isn't meant to be snarky; it's meant to point out the /ultimate/ absurdity of our copyright system - that you literally /cannot determine/ if something is or is not fair use without a judgment. As in a judge.
So while you make important points about the presence or absence of commentary, the fact that the video was transformed /at all/ means that it's no longer a determinable question.
[deleted]
> This is what a broken copyright enforcement system looks like.
Alright, so how do we fix it? How can content producers protect themselves from legitimate copyright infringement on services such as YouTube that allow unverified uploads on a massive scale?
Alright, so how do we fix it? How can content producers protect themselves from legitimate copyright infringement on services such as YouTube that allow unverified uploads on a massive scale?
>How can content producers protect themselves from legitimate copyright infringement on services such as YouTube that allow unverified uploads on a massive scale?
That framing of the question is inherently biased. It assumes that if no good solution can be found, some bad solution that solves that problem is the only alternative, regardless of whether it creates even more serious problems for other people.
It also assumes that the "problem" is sufficiently major to justify the implied "whatever it takes" approach to solving it. Notwithstanding that substantially all of Hollywood's collected works are available on The Pirate Bay and in a thousand other places, the studios continue to make record profits. While an elegant solution to the problem you mention would be convenient, the decidedly inelegant approaches currently on the books or theorized by pundits are not inherently superior to the default alternative of doing nothing at all just because "something must be done" is a popular piece of political rhetoric.
That framing of the question is inherently biased. It assumes that if no good solution can be found, some bad solution that solves that problem is the only alternative, regardless of whether it creates even more serious problems for other people.
It also assumes that the "problem" is sufficiently major to justify the implied "whatever it takes" approach to solving it. Notwithstanding that substantially all of Hollywood's collected works are available on The Pirate Bay and in a thousand other places, the studios continue to make record profits. While an elegant solution to the problem you mention would be convenient, the decidedly inelegant approaches currently on the books or theorized by pundits are not inherently superior to the default alternative of doing nothing at all just because "something must be done" is a popular piece of political rhetoric.
It can be easily fixed by removing phrase "copyright infringement" from the language. Then content providers could easily protect themselves from anyone copying content produced by them, by not producing that content.
People who know how to make money of the content production without government issued monopoly on copying will step in to fill the gap (if there'll actually be any gap).
People who know how to make money of the content production without government issued monopoly on copying will step in to fill the gap (if there'll actually be any gap).
I think he could have waited the two weeks to get an answer for his counter-notification before raising torches and pitchforks.
> torches and pitchforks
go back to reddit, please.
go back to reddit, please.
He's been responding, and responding to counter-responses, and then responding to secondary-takedowns, then counter-responding to secondary takedown denials for quite a while. I think it's appropriate to bring this into the public view.
Yeah he definitely did the due diligence before bringing it public...
On a side note, he did post his video here with popups that are basically an "American Pie" like parody of popups in films... except that I think the popups are supposed to be serious. They make watching the remix utterly impossible though. http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo/
On a side note, he did post his video here with popups that are basically an "American Pie" like parody of popups in films... except that I think the popups are supposed to be serious. They make watching the remix utterly impossible though. http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo/
The pop-up video played fine (without the popups) on my iPad.
He's gone through multiple rounds of appeals and much legal wrangling. Exactly how patient would you recommend being?