Copyright Worries Threaten The Best Thing To Come Out Of The New Star Wars Movies

from the MST3K2.0? dept

Tue, Apr 13th 2010 7:29pm — Dennis Yang

If you haven't seen Red Letter Media's excellent reviews of the Star Wars films, The Phantom Menace and The Attack of the Clones, then you might want to carve out three hours out of your day and watch them (the reviews are 70-minutes and 90-minutes long, respectively) -- they're incredible. (Warning: he does use some NSFW language occasionally.)

So, it's very sad to hear that Mike Stoklasa, the writer & director of the Red Letter Media reviews, is considering not producing any more reviews, out of fear of being slapped with a copyright lawsuit. Stoklasa says:

"The thing is, I'm no lawyer. But I had someone actually talk to a copyright lawyer, and they didn't know what to make of the reviews. It's a new thing, You can get away with using a clip from a movie for the purpose of review or commentary, but can you dissect an entire film like that? There's commentary and it's part satire [because of the character, Mr. Plinkett] and part review and part educational as well because there's elements of filmmaking insights."

Stoklasa's reviews are innovative and entertaining and take movie reviewing to a whole new level by remixing movie clips into the review itself. In doing so, they are emerging as a whole new art form. While more traditional movie reviews and satire can use clips of movies as a result of fair use, Stoklasa could be treading on new ground with his works. That said, this could be an interesting case if he were to get sued, because he would likely win, which would then redraw the boundaries for fair use, which would be a great thing. So, Mike Stoklasa, please don't let the threat of copyright lawsuits stop you from continuing to produce your excellent reviews -- to do so would be a travesty.

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, movies, reviews
Companies: red letter media

32 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Modplan (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 7:45pm

See: MST3K

Though maybe they simply got the "rights" on the cheap simply because they were crap films. I know with Rifftrax they don't sell movies alongside their riffs, except for short films which are public domain (a lot of old informational videos and the like) and 1 or 2 DVD's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Poster, 13 Apr 2010 @ 7:46pm

Please please please please PLEASE don't let him stop doing these reviews.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 7:52pm

That said, this could be an interesting case if he were to get sued, because he would likely win, which would then redraw the boundaries for fair use, which would be a great thing. So, Mike Stoklasa, please don't let the threat of copyright lawsuits stop you from continuing to produce your excellent reviews -- to do so would be a travesty.

Well, in NJ we just passed a law that says pedestrians have the right of way in the crosswalk, but I wouldn't recommend someone walk out in from of cars so they could win in court. You might win but it will still hurt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 7:55pm

there is a point where a review is no longer review. I think it was about 65 minutes earlier in the 70 minute review.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 7:56pm
  
  Re:
  Coming from renowned know-absolutely-nothing-about-copyright-law TAM.
  
  Fun.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Robert Ring (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:02pm
  
  Re:
  So if a review goes longer than five minutes it's not a review? Why not two minutes? Why not fifteen? Does this translate to written reviews?
  
  You're not making sense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Robert Ring (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:07pm
  
  Re:
  So if a review goes longer than five minutes it's not a review? Why not two minutes? Why not fifteen? Does this translate to written reviews?
  
  You're not making sense.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Robert Ring (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:08pm
  
  Re:
  [Oops, sorry about the double post. Browser problem.]
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- abc gum, 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:17pm
  
  Re:
  When you have previosly viewed something
  and you view it again
  for a period in excess of five minutes
  is it not a review?
  
  If not a review, then what is it?
  
  Do enlighten us great sage
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2010 @ 9:58pm
  
  Re:
  This was way more than a review. You would know that if you watched any of it.
  
  "Nothing in the Phantom Menace makes any sense at all."
  
  If it takes 70 minutes to prove that statement then let them take the full 70 minutes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2010 @ 4:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    hint -> re - view
    that is: to view again
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2010 @ 10:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't get it.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldGeek, 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:27pm

Really
"this could be an interesting case if he were to get sued, because he would likely win", only if he had the money to fight. They always win because no one can afford to fight for that long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 14 Apr 2010 @ 6:09am
  
  Re: Really
  He could always contact the EFF and have them forward him to a good copyright lawyer will to do this pro bono.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Megore, 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:27pm

Dude I'm gonna be soo pissed if he stops making his reviews. and stfu TAM no one likes you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ian (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:34pm

Sadly, it's his cash on the line, and with figures like in the millions on the line, even a 99% chance of winning is a poor gamble. This is especially true because after legal bills, even if he wins he loses.

If he quits, add it to the list of things you put in the letters you write your politicians. You guys do write letters, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Killer_Tofu (profile), 14 Apr 2010 @ 6:15am
  
  Re:
  Yes, actually, I (and some others from where I would hope) do.
  
  Not that they pay too much attention to me or all the support I cite. Every once in a rare while I will get an actual response and not just some simple auto response looking email saying "I will vote for the people" which looks like they never even read my email.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jupiter (profile), 13 Apr 2010 @ 8:43pm

The studios don't need to sue him. They need to hire him for quality control. He's not doing anything wrong - and he's doing everything right. Lucas needs this guy on his shoulder telling him when he's doing something crappy. The only problem here is the guy didn't get to the movie until AFTER it was released. The guy's only telling them how to make good movies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
peter, 13 Apr 2010 @ 10:12pm

That was so awesome, thanks for letting me know it exists.
I can't stop watching (unlike the movies where I could).

Many thanks for letting me know this was out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2010 @ 12:57am

While some of the attempts at humor are a bit annoying, these are valuable commentary and critique. Even though there are a great number of clips, this is definitely fair use. It's not a mere recital of the film despite the fact that you do get a fairly detailed summary of the plot, there are still large chunks missing, out of order, chopped up, and without dialogue. These are in no way a substitute for the films, and serve a much different purpose. It's an explanation why these films are so unsatisfying that's primarily aimed at people who are already familiar with the movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tfp, 14 Apr 2010 @ 1:45am

Copyright & lawyers
Why don't you lend him your lawyers to defend his right to free speech - er, aimed at Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brian, 14 Apr 2010 @ 3:57am

Stupid videos! I nearly wet myself because of how ridiculously funny they are. This may be the best thing I've ever seen on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2010 @ 5:30am

How is what he is doing any different from what Universities do in their film classes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2010 @ 6:09am
  
  Re:
  Universities only show the film to 30 students at a time and charge them $300 a credit (plus books) to view the movie.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Killer_Tofu (profile), 14 Apr 2010 @ 6:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    Good think this guy isn't charging us all that money then.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Apr 2010 @ 6:17am

What's wrong with your faaaaaace?!?!?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nina Paley (profile), 14 Apr 2010 @ 7:09am

Red Letter Legal Defense Fund
The Red Letter reviews are among my favorite things on the intertubes. I think Mike Stoklasa could get a good Legal Defense Fund going if he merely asked. To watch his reviews is to love them, and that love means people would come to his defense. I'd contribute, if it came to that.

I also expect he could easily get a very good pro bono legal team, because such a case would set such an important precedent and garner so much publicity. So fight, Mike, FIGHT!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just Bob, 14 Apr 2010 @ 7:17am

thanks for the link
"The second biggest problem with the Phantom Menace is the whole story and the way it was told". OMG, this guy is brilliant! Looks like I know how I'm going to spend the rest of my morning...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stephen, 14 Apr 2010 @ 11:04am

video dissertations
If he were writing long form reviews of the movies, he could simply paste into his narration descriptions of the crap, er, action on the screen, but it would have the immediate visceral effect of seeing just how bad these movies are. This is the future of reviewing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Apr 2010 @ 3:47am

god these were hilarious, i had to watch all of em
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cenaris, 16 Apr 2010 @ 6:24am

Association with disturbia.
I don't think it's so much the idea of copyright issues... Well, actually it has a lot to do with that. But I think it also has something to do with the guy inserting an obsessive serial killer subplot into his reviews. As much as I love the entertainment that comes out of it (and they do make the reviews a lot, lot more interesting to watch), I don't think George Lucas wants something as wildly popular as these videos associating his franchise with the idea of a fictional serial killer/hostage holder reviewing and picking the films apart.

In the end I love the reviews, and it's obvious it's sour grapes on Lucas' side of things for making a few films that are so flawed. If you note, the reviewer has very little negetive things to say about the original films (even though they also have faults) and Lucas can't milk the old ones anymore because they are not the focus of the series majority revenue.

So in the end it's all about the reviews ripping the films apart and Lucas throwing all his toys out of the pram and being an idiot about things because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2010 @ 7:49pm

While his reviews would currently win a copyright lawsuit, once the ACTA Treaty is ratified, he would not. Wikipedia has more info on ACTA which is a clever way for intellectual property owners to get around existing fair-use court decisions by means of policy laundering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]