Copyright Law Is The Killing Fields Of Culture
from the creativity-must-be-paid-for dept
It seems that a day can't go by without more examples of just how problematic our copyright setup is. J.D. Lasica has written up a great article talking about a guy who was running a nice little company that took movies and made two minute trailers advertising the films, which he would then offer to online retailers to help promote the movies. The lawyers at Disney, however, could only see the fact that someone who wasn't them appeared to be making money on their content. Even though his work was helping them sell more, they sued him for $110 million and eventually forced him to shut down the company. Since he was first sued, he went out and created a documentary of other artists who "have been threatened, sued, fined, and put out of work in the name of copyright." These are all cases where people, in an attempt to be creative and expand our culture, were instead shut down by copyright laws that have clearly gone too far.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
People/companies are stupid about what is and is not too their advantage all the time. How is this different because it involves IP instead of physical property?
Sorry, Mike, but this reads like a "knee jerk" on your part. The real issue is their short-sighted reaction, not malfunctioning law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I think he did.
In that context, it made sense.
Here it doesn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
So if Disney doesn't sue someone redistributing their product without their permission, couldn't they risk losing it too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
I would suspect Disney argued that the "purpose and character" of the work was commercial (leans against fair use), the nature of the copyrighted works for sale are by definition high-value and high-availability (again, leans against), and that the effect on their market is potentially negative because Disney can't carefully control what goes into the trailer (if you buy it the argument, leans against fair use).
I would also suspect that Disney is just being careful. They don't want to set a precedent whereby others can lawfully make trailers using their footage. Imagine if I made a trailer that made their movies look smutty, or just didn't (gasp!) pre-test them to assure Disney's audience (do you feel the sense of ownership?) would approve. In this case they may benefit, but ultimately the less control they have over their IP the less value they can extract (or so the reasoning goes).
This case seems more a case of brand protection than IP protection. In that respect I see validity in the claim and understand the outcome. If Disney wants to protect their brand, so be it. However, like the Grey Album this shows how the "derivatives works" clause is overly broad in a world where technology means reuse of ideas (something we want) often implies the creation of a derivative work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killing Fields of Culture
It's exciting to feel all reverberations from our little act of media rebellion. The movie referred to in JD Lasica's article is "Willful Infringement" -- and since we came out of the editing room, the movie's been playing all over the country at universities, law schools, libraries, film fests, cultural events, arthouse movie theaters, etc.
Thanks for helping us sound the alarm about
the damage that corporate copyright abuse is doing to free speech, cultural democracy, and artistic freedom.
Best regards,
Greg Hittelman
director, Willful Infringement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]