Did Slate Violate Copyright Law?
from the nobody-knows dept
Slate has a
clever video comparing Hillary Clinton to Tracy Flick of the movie
Election:
This isn't a blog about politics, so I won't venture an opinion on whether this is fair to Sen. Clinton or not, but the video has sparked some interesting discussion about copyright law. First, Cynthia Brumfield
points out that this is precisely the kind of video that Hollywood (specifically,
NBC's Rick Cotton) would disallow under the fair use doctrine. Cotton argues that "the assembly of unchanged copies of different copyrighted works" shouldn't counted as fair use, but that there should be "something more" to qualify. This is quite vague, but it seems pretty likely that the above video, which is basically just 45 seconds of movie footage interspersed with footage of Sens. Clinton and Obama, wouldn't qualify under his test. But Chris Soghoian points out an even more obvious way that Slate may have
broken the law: the most likely source of the video clips in question would likely be from a DVD. As Soghoian points out, the video is too crisp and clear to have come from a VHS tape. It's conceivable that it was taped from a cable TV broadcast, but I think he's right that the most obvious source would likely have been a DVD. If that's the case, then the video editor in question almost certainly broke the law, because DVD-ripping tools like
Handbrake are illegal "circumvention devices" under the DMCA. Of course, it's not likely
Election distributor Paramount will actually sue
Slate, which is owned by the influential Washington Post Company. But I think it illustrates the extent to which the letter of the law is diverging from everyday practice. In a sane world, there would be no question that videos like this one would be legal. But in the world we actually live in, no one is sure what the law is, and people developing these kinds of creative works need to be constantly worrying about possible legal problems.
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 law, dmca, election, fair use
Companies: slate, washington post
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yeah?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Parody
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When fair use of DVD is made illegal
These laws are not about fair use, they are about taking away your ability to use content/goods/services as you see fit.
It is the dawn of the nanny state where the government begins to take more and more control of your life.
from the way you use your computer to your choice of health care (or lack), to your choice of thermostat setting, your choice to drink alcohol, to smoke, to bare arms. Death by a 1000 cuts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weapon_Shops_of_Isher
"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free."
"The avalanche has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When fair use of DVD is made illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When fair use of DVD is made illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
analog out
However, there still should be a fair use limitation on the anti-circumvention measures of the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: analog out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel like less of a person for having watched it, knowing that I will never get that minute and a half of my life back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the AUTHORS of the DMCA
Everyday the skumbag demoncrats are stealing YOUR liberty. Liberalism is the slow road to tyranny and if YOU elect another Demoncrat and expect anything different YOU should be killed...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the AUTHORS of the DMCA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the AUTHORS of the DMCA
Funny, that doesn't sound at all like tyranny to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's the AUTHORS of the DMCA
Back on topic, the DMCA is horrendously flawed, but until someone sues a Congressman or something for a violation, I doubt we'll see any serious effort to mend it. The fact that an issue like this would even come up is painfully sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apparently, Mitch has had TechDirt banned from the interweb tubes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Selective Enforcement
Just make everything illegal and then use selective enforcement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ever hear of DVR?
However if the only item in question is quality, ever hear of a DVR? I record shows daily on mine and can easily put them to DVD without ripping.
It's all about money, the potential of money really. If a show would never have been seen otherwise, is it really valuable?
They should take down Wierd Al if this is not fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]