Videos Demonstrate The Complexities Of Fair Use
from the human-judgment-required dept
On Thursday, Mike noted EFF's Fair Use Principles for User Generated Video Content. I wanted to highlight the "test suite" of fair-use videos they released in concert with those principles. It's a a gallery of videos that EFF thinks constitute fair use of copyrighted works. It includes a number of golden oldies that made the rounds in recent years, including "Ten Things I Hate About Commandments", a video featuring that ridiculous Nixon Peabody song, and a video about fair use constructed by splicing together short Disney Cartoon clips. It's worth noting that the law is far from settled in this area, so it's far from certain that the courts would find all of these videos to be fair use under copyright law. But in a sense, that's the point: deciding what constitutes fair use requires the exercise of human judgment. The four factors determining fair use include subjective factors like "the effect of the use upon the potential market" and "the purpose and character of the use" that simply can't be determined by an automated algorithm.
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
Which is why..
Shorter Copyright terms = More Public Domain
Shorter Copyright terms = Less Litigation
Shorter Copyright terms = More creativity, not less.
Also... can any one here (especially you "copyright cartel" lurkers) explain to me EXACTLY why the intellectual property monopoly of Copyright is intrinsically more deserving of protection terms that are LONGER than the intellectual property monopoly granted by Patent?
Seriously, take all the space you need to formulate your best arguments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I too would like to hear from the copyright cartel
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I too would like to hear from the copyright ca
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I too would like to hear from the copyrigh
panic and cry
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@GeneralEmergency
Corporations employ armies of lawyers, whose interests are served by inventing activities for which they can justify their salaries and/or retainers. Copyright defense is one of the simplest examples of these activities.
I understand that your question comes from a position of social responsibility. You seem to be missing the role of corporate interests in this area, which is that of the antagonist. Corporations are chiefly (and legally) responsible first to their shareholders and/or owners. Any pretense of social responsibility by a corporation is nothing more than a marketing gesture in support of its primary responsibility.
The tendency is away from public ownership. If you want to see creativity at its most effective, observe how ABC/Disney extends their copyrights past the century mark in a few more years.
The ultimate expression of corporate copyright will be law which prevents anyone from saying anything about a corporation. This will be preceded by law preventing anyone using a corporation's name without its express consent, which will be preceded by law preventing anyone from saying certain things about a corporation, etc.
The high irony lies in the origin of corporations being considered as persons: This move was made by British courts in order to allow for the collection of debts from corporations.
I'm not saying that corporations are evil--what they are is too powerful.
[ link to this | view in thread ]