Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Unregistered
aliases
- Damon
- Damon Kiesow
- Damon Kiesow
- Damon Kiesow
- Damon
- Damon Kiesow
- nashuatelegraph
Damon
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in Lane Hartwell update: Still wrong on Mathew's comments
Matt, thanks for the lecture. I might disagree with your conclusions but I certainly would not argue you arrive at them via ignorance.
Fair Use is a doctrine that can only be resolved in court. That is why most artists (like Weird Al) get permission or pay for clearances for any use that might be reasonably questioned. It is good to be right - it is also good to avoid being sued.
The link you provide above is actually a very good one: http://chillingeffects.org/fairuse/faq.cgi#QID817
I would say the bubble video would have a 60/40 chance of losing if it went to court. If you were to pick a number - what odds would you give it?
cheers
Fair Use is a doctrine that can only be resolved in court. That is why most artists (like Weird Al) get permission or pay for clearances for any use that might be reasonably questioned. It is good to be right - it is also good to avoid being sued.
The link you provide above is actually a very good one: http://chillingeffects.org/fairuse/faq.cgi#QID817
I would say the bubble video would have a 60/40 chance of losing if it went to court. If you were to pick a number - what odds would you give it?
cheers
1 reply
mathewi
I'd say more like 70/30 in favour -- maybe even 80/20
1 year ago
in Lane Hartwell update: Still wrong on Mathew's comments
And how is it different from the satire Weird Al does - which requires him to get clearances?
The video uses a substantial amount of the image, it did not use it for the purpose of commenting on the image itself, and it did it within a commercial context - as opposed to an academic/non-profit one.
That seems like three strikes out of four. The only criteria I see in favor of fair use is that the video probably does not significantly impact the economic viability of the photo in terms of future licensing.
The 'parody' argument is valid only if we agree that the photographer is part of the culture being parodied. That seems a stretch and the ad absurdum result of that would be to nullify a lot of copyright law.
I probably would not have bothered to pursue this if I was the photographer (there is no money to be had from it) but I would think she has a good chance to win if it went to court.
The video uses a substantial amount of the image, it did not use it for the purpose of commenting on the image itself, and it did it within a commercial context - as opposed to an academic/non-profit one.
That seems like three strikes out of four. The only criteria I see in favor of fair use is that the video probably does not significantly impact the economic viability of the photo in terms of future licensing.
The 'parody' argument is valid only if we agree that the photographer is part of the culture being parodied. That seems a stretch and the ad absurdum result of that would be to nullify a lot of copyright law.
I probably would not have bothered to pursue this if I was the photographer (there is no money to be had from it) but I would think she has a good chance to win if it went to court.
1 reply
mathewi
Damon, I think you need to do some research into fair use.
The fact that the entire photo was used is irrelevant, as the Law Geek
notes (I've linked to his post in previous posts of mine) -- in almost
all cases involving photos, the entire thing will be used, and several
rulings have made it clear that it isn't just the amount of the work
that is used, but how much of the supposedly infringing work it makes
up (in this case, a tiny fraction).
The fact that it doesn't specifically parody the photo itself is also
not enough to disqualify it as fair use -- satire of a larger subject
of which the photo is a part (or which it in some way represents) is
enough. The fact that an allegedly infringing work is for-profit has
also been ruled to be irrelevant when deciding on fair use.
So you're wrong on all counts. As for Weird Al, he isn't legally
required to get permission from the artists whose songs he parodies --
he does it by choice.
The fact that the entire photo was used is irrelevant, as the Law Geek
notes (I've linked to his post in previous posts of mine) -- in almost
all cases involving photos, the entire thing will be used, and several
rulings have made it clear that it isn't just the amount of the work
that is used, but how much of the supposedly infringing work it makes
up (in this case, a tiny fraction).
The fact that it doesn't specifically parody the photo itself is also
not enough to disqualify it as fair use -- satire of a larger subject
of which the photo is a part (or which it in some way represents) is
enough. The fact that an allegedly infringing work is for-profit has
also been ruled to be irrelevant when deciding on fair use.
So you're wrong on all counts. As for Weird Al, he isn't legally
required to get permission from the artists whose songs he parodies --
he does it by choice.
1 year ago
in Lane Hartwell update: Still wrong on Mathew's comments
After watching the video - I would be hard pressed to argue fair use. This is a music video, promoting a band & web site that is selling CDs and booking gigs.
The video is a commercial for the band and the implicit satire does not argue for their right for wholesale copyright violations. I wonder if the RIAA is not also interested in the cover of the Bill Joel tune?
Weird Al has made his living from similar parody songs - but in every case he has needed to get permission of the rights holder. How is this different - for either the song or the images?
The video is a commercial for the band and the implicit satire does not argue for their right for wholesale copyright violations. I wonder if the RIAA is not also interested in the cover of the Bill Joel tune?
Weird Al has made his living from similar parody songs - but in every case he has needed to get permission of the rights holder. How is this different - for either the song or the images?
1 reply
mathewi
Well then it's not a very good promotional video, because I watched
the whole thing and didn't even realize it was a band. In any case,
several different levels of U.S. courts have ruled that whether the
content is for-profit or not (which I don't think this is in any case)
is irrelevant for the purposes of determining fair use.
the whole thing and didn't even realize it was a band. In any case,
several different levels of U.S. courts have ruled that whether the
content is for-profit or not (which I don't think this is in any case)
is irrelevant for the purposes of determining fair use.
