Professor Uses Copyright Threats After Joke Commercial Uses Some Of His Lecture
from the copyright-insanity dept
So many stories of copyright being abused, so little time... The latest, as sent in by Jon and a few others involves an MIT professor who got upset when he found out that a commercial for a Ricoh copier happened to use a tiny bit of text (2 sentences) from one of his published lectures to set up a joke. You can see the commercial here: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
Filed Under: copyright
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yeah, it's an admission that "we have much more important business than to deal with than this small shit, so take this penny and stop wasting our time."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another view
I can't believe I'm seeing people defend marketing people. Just because the advertising agency cast two hotties in the commercial does not make them any less a bunch of amoral rip-off artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another view
What's totally amazing is that the smarmy little marketing copywriter amoral rip-off turd was reading an MIT web page and knew enough to lift something meaningful and useful. He actually had to read down to the sixth paragraph to find material to pilfer.
Perhaps his mother helped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In all fairness...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plagiarism???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about the music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about the music
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Fer Da Chillin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Fair_dealing_in_Australia
I still firmly believe what the professor did to be unethical, regardless of whether the law was on his side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use?
1. The ad was made in Australia. I am not sure what the Fair Use implications are in Australia. They are a Commonwealth country (no First Amendment, heck no written Constitution) and were founded by convicts (I know, that last point is irrelevant, but I like to throw that in there).
2. The work was lifted from an academic lecture, to be used in a commercial advertisement. The "source" of the information (lecturer) probably wasn't planning on profiting from the words which he spoke, at the time. Ricoh, most likely, was attempting to profit quite handsomely from the use of these words, if only to prove that their models are smarter than other models (at least they can read a script).
So, the issue is not one of pure fair use, but it is "entangled" by the concept of lifting academic lectures for the purpose of selling printers. Quite a sticky situation.
Oh, and he never actually threatened to sue. He sent them a friendly letter saying "Please give money to these 2 charities". He probably threated to smear Ricoh and the ad agency's name on his blog. Not much of a threat, but since they played nice, I am sure that Mr. Quantum Mechanics is being nice to them in turn. Everybody's a winner, or some such cruft.
At any rate, all of this could have been avoided if they had just put a tiny little credit in the ad saying "lifted from http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html" or something similar. This resembles the Flickr/Vodaphone controversy, but in this instance, the missing ingredient was attribution.
Shame on Ricoh, next time hire someone with class, like Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoa - Fair Use? Not So Fast
But, my job as an internal auditor for my company comes across fair use issues quite a bit. Let's get some things straight:
- Fair use does not permit "small bits" of copyrighted material. For example, see: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters [471 U.S. 539]. There is no hard and fast rule about "number of seconds/words/sentences", etc., that can be used.
- Citation of the copyright owner does not permit use of copyrighted material. You still must obtain explicit permission from the owner/holder.
- To determine fair use, US courts use a four part test:
1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
A first glance, a court would probably vote strongly against a fair use argument on pts 1 (definitely not transformative nor for the general good) neutral on pts 2 and 3, and find pt 4 in favor of a fair use argument.
In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music [510 U.S. 569], the courts found parody for commercial purposes can still be fair use so my guess is that'd be Ricoh's best argument. (Then again, the commercial isn't a parody of the speech or physics...it's a parody of models. Maybe.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Whoa - Fair Use? Not So Fast
True, but it's worth noting that the four parts are not weighted equally, and it's not a situation where if you trigger one of the four you're automatically losing fair use claims.
The most important claim is that fourth one, and I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that this impacts the market for the copyrighted work in a negative way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh wait.. it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]