Verizon's Bizarre Constitutional Argument: Net Neutrality Rules Violate Its First & Fifth Amendment Rights?

Copyright Fight Over Competing Abortion Videos Results In Awkward Fair Use Ruling

from the why-must-it-be-parody dept

Fri, Jul 6th 2012 12:19pm — Mike Masnick

Okay, let's just start out this post by noting the fact that abortion is an extremely controversial issue where people have very, very strong feelings on both sides. This post -- indirectly -- does deal with the debate over abortion, but it is not the point of the post, nor does the debate over abortion have anything whatsoever to do with the topics of interest here. Thus I am making a request, up front, that the comments on this post focus on the copyright issues raised by this ruling.

The case involves a clinic that performs abortions, Northland Family Planning, which made a video about the procedure. Another group, which opposes abortions, the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, took those videos and made its own versions, with a very different message. I'm not going to embed the videos, but you can find the Northland video here or here. You can see the CBR video here (this one is NSFW). Northland was unhappy about CBR using their video to create one with a very different message... and sued, claiming copyright infringement.

The district court ruling found that the CBR video was fair use, though it did so in a convoluted and twisted way -- basically arguing that the new video was a "parody" of the original. It basically did this to try to fit with the clear rulings around parody, but in doing so avoided clear statements of how transformative use in a non-parody setting, for commentary or criticism, can also be fair use. Rebecca Tushnet's writeup goes through, in great detail, how the court seemed to get pretty contorted in trying to make this about parody, even when it's not really. That's unfortunate, because it makes perfect sense that the CBR video is fair use -- and it's obvious that Northland sued not because of worries about the copyright, but rather because it disagreed with the message CBR was spreading. That's a misuse of copyright law, but one that is all too common.

The first line in Tushnet's post makes the point about this kind of copyright abuse:

Here’s a rule worth following: Don’t sue your critics for copyright infringement.

It's just too bad that the court couldn't make a simple ruling on the clear fact that the lawsuit was really an attempt to stifle a disagreeing viewpoint, rather than any of the basic rationales for copyright. Twisting this into a "parody" case makes for some awkward and slightly unbelievable claims in the ruling, when a statement on how commentary and criticism can be protected fair use would have been much more worthwhile.

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: abortion, criticism, fair use, parody
Companies: center for bio-ethical reform, northland family planning

44 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Brian Schroth (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 12:30pm

not so sure we can easily lump this in under criticism/commentary
"fair use" criticism is criticism of the work, not just criticism in general. I can play a clip of a song to criticize the song, but I can't use the song as the soundtrack for my movie that criticizes some politician. Same for fair use commentary- the idea behind these fair use exceptions is that people need to be able to comment on and criticize works, and they will need to use pieces of the work in order to do so effectively. But it you use pieces of the work to comment on or criticize something completely different, that's no longer fair use. It seems like a stretch to say that this is a commentary on the video- it seems to be more a commentary on abortion in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re: not so sure we can easily lump this in under criticism/commentary
  I don't see it as a commentary of something completely different. Your example of a using a song in a movie that criticizes a politician isn't even close. If the politician had written a song about anti-corruption, and your movie was about political corruption and that particular politician was corrupt, and you used his song, I see that as criticism and parody.
  
  However, without seeing the videos, I can see how it could be parody. Just because you are talking about a serious subject that people have very strong feelings on does not mean you can't use some very dark parody. Heck, wikipedia says that Parody "is an imitative work created to mock, comment on, or trivialise an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation". I'd says it's pretty ironic to use a pro-abortion video to mock, comment on or trivialize pro-abortion stances in an anti-abortion video.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 1:15pm
  
  Re: not so sure we can easily lump this in under criticism/commentary
  Fair use criticism can be criticism in general and not just criticism of the work itself.
  
  For example, if I want to criticize Fox News, or maybe CNN instead, it is fair use to make use of a clip of their work -- even though I may not be criticizing the actual work.
  
  Perhaps a better example, if I wish to criticize a US congress critter (no matter which party) it would be fair use to include from a copyright work of theirs if it supports the critical argument -- even though it is not the work itself being criticized.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Al Bert (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 12:52pm

someone had to do it
Thank you for the plea for relevant commentary, Mike. I read the headline and reflexively braced for another tangential comment war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2012 @ 1:00pm

Abortions for some, tiny american flags for others
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 1:08pm
  
  Re:
  what do American flags or anything about flags have to do in that context?
  
  NO.. Don't tell me, The rest of the world has the context of these videos as a non-issue and no politician would be caught dead by their wife in even raising it. Only in America is it an "election issue" *massive eyeroll of stupidity*.
  
  Getting back to the matter at hand, I agree with Mike.. stupid ruling that came to correct answer. Parody is NEVER this. Commentary of puplic interest situation (only in the USA mind you) would of been much better and correct.
  
  You lot are really weird about womens bodies, and what you think they should or shouldn't be allowed to do with them.. Think the court tried to act in an impartial manner by actually showing bias by making the case about the context of the videos and not the specific data copied and its usage itself. Nucking Futs!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Wally (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 1:36pm
    
    Re: Re:Parody
    The title might be considered parody, and parody is not always supposed to be funny.
    
    Parody is sometimes the best way to protest the stupidity and moral wrongdoing at hand. It brings about public awareness of problems and gets people aware of their surroundings. Now if it were satire, I'd have an issue...satire makes direct fun of it (given the subject, abortion isn't funny, it's just sad and unethical).
    
    The tittle that CRB gives "The MOST SHOCKING AND DISGUSTING VIDEO YOU WELL EVER SEE," is generally the parody part, the video is unchanged.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2012 @ 3:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:Parody
      Ix-nay on the olitics-pay.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2012 @ 9:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re:Parody
      no, whats shocking and disgusting is you deciding what right and wrong, whats moral and ethical for others, take your morals and ethics and shove them up your ass
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re:
  One of the best Klang and Krang Treehouse of Horror episodes ever.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - E. Zachary Knight (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 1:46pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm an idiot. Kang and Kodos.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Wally (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 1:25pm

Ethics
CBR is covered on grounds that the procedures involved in an abortion. Are not copywrittren and are documented in medical journals. The fact that parody is covered by the constitution as well as protesting against ethics you deem immoral. The fair use clause is allowed because it is well documented how to perform an abortion.

Not to say anything either way Mike, but most people outside of the medical community really don't understand Abortions in planned parenthood (which is more like a beurocracy) go against the Hypocratic Oathe they are sworn into upon getting their MD. I mean I'm one who is against abortion, and maybe CBR is too. The point is CBR has right to protest and show their disgust this way, and it does accurately portray what procedures are done and how they are executed.

There are great alternatives to abortions, may not be as effective at preventing, but it doesn't hurt as much to use them as it does abortion. My ethics on abortion are slightly mixed. It disgusts me for two reasons.

1. At three weeks, you have nerve endings, a beating heart, the capability to move around and kick, and smile....I cannot kill things that smile at me.

2. It puts the mother in more harm and can cause massive infections. You have to keep your uterus' outside at a certain temperature...anything higher or lower will either cause infection, or make it useless for further child bearing.

3. It costs more on average for an abortion. The procedure isn't covered on most health insurance plans because of the risks involved. It is cheaper to get condoms and BC pills and far less risky to your health

Now, try not to get me wrong, there are certain cases where the baby needs to come out where it dies in the placenta....but they enduce child birth to do that, and while it is a ton more painful...it's short term physically.

Sorry about the spark of debate, buy honestly I think CBR is doing the right thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- art guerrilla (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re: Ethics
  do i own my own body, or not ?
  answer that, and you've answered the abortion issue...
  art guerrilla
  aka ann archy
  art guerrilla at windstream dot net
  eof
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2012 @ 2:42pm
    
    Re: Re: Ethics
    Suicide isn't legal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2012 @ 1:52pm
  
  Re: Ethics
  You first paragraph deals with copyright. The rest is not relevant to this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Wally (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 2:43pm
    
    Re: Re: Ethics
    Im well aware of that, my end goal is just stating my beliefs on Abortion as it is a dangerous procedure. Considering that's what the CBR is stating about the video, it's sort of relevant in most respects. The judge ruled wisely because while the video is copyright material, it is considered a medical journal. The procedures are documented digitally to show customers the procedures.
    
    As for any irrelevant statement "It's my body, I can do what I want with it," you have every right ruin your reproductive system any way you like. If you have a problem with that, use BC or a condom, or if you are just that fertile, there are ways of making love without penetration or touching yourself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike42 (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 3:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ethics
      This is not the appropriate forum for "your beliefs."
      
      Try Reddit.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - AzureSky (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 4:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Ethics
        hes clearly a pro-life crusader, as such he cant not post here about this unless everybody agrees with him....because after all, he has to try and bring his religion to the rest of us....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2012 @ 3:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ethics
      Who cares, we're talking about copyright.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 2:08pm
  
  Re: Ethics
  "CBR is covered on grounds that the procedures involved in an abortion. Are not copywrittren and are documented in medical journals. The fact that parody is covered by the constitution as well as protesting against ethics you deem immoral. The fair use clause is allowed because it is well documented how to perform an abortion." (the relevant part of your post)
  
  If I make a video about how to do CPR I still own the copyright on the video even if the knowledge I have is from a well documented book. If someone copies my video (in a way that's not covered by fair use) then they have violated copyright laws. That is the debate at hand, not the information, but the video itself. Is using the video the way they did fair use?
  
  The judge says it is commentary on the video where we see it as commentary on abortion as a whole. Using the work as commentary on the work itself is protected by fair use where as using the work as commentary on something else is not. I see it as both, they're doing commentary on both the video and abortion as a whole.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2012 @ 2:38pm
  
  Re: Ethics
  Hey stupid, RTFA. Hell, just try the first three sentences.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2012 @ 2:40pm
  
  Re: Ethics
  "Abortions in planned parenthood (which is more like a beurocracy) go against the Hypocratic Oathe they are sworn into upon getting their MD."
  
  Including abortions to terminate pregnancy due to rape or incest?
  You are one sick boy, boy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Wally (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 2:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Ethics
    I sense sarcasm, but in case you are serious, I would hold up on the rape/ insest clause is sort of irrelevant, most cases give them up for adoption. And most fetuses and babies born of incest die within a week of being born.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      DogMama, 6 Jul 2012 @ 3:15pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ethics
      Um, can you cite any sort of study at all about rape/incest? Claiming that babies who are the product of incest die within a week of birth is patently absurd.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2012 @ 3:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ethics
      "And most fetuses and babies born of incest die within a week of being born."
      
      No, they don't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AzureSky (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 4:08pm
    
    Re: Re: Ethics
    in the eyes of these people, theres ZERO justification for abortion ever, if it kills the mother and the child due to complications, then "its gods will"
    
    I say this having had this debate with well over 100 of these people over the past 15years...
    
    i love how he says most babies/fetuses die within weeks if they are from incest....funny, I have read up on this and the research I have seen actually says they tend to be fine, just higher risks of whatever genegic medical problems the family carries.....
    
    still....this is the kinda moron who would advocate for a 9yo was raped by her uncle to give birth.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AzureSky (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 4:02pm
  
  Re: Ethics
  bet you this lovely fellow who is pro life is also pro war.....most who hold his opinions feel the life of a fetus must be protected but the lives of those who have been born...not so much.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Jul 2012 @ 11:03am
    
    Re: Re: Ethics
    No one is pro war.
    
    they might be pro defend ourselfs from hostile forces, pro steal resources from other countries or pro cleanse the undesirables but non of them are to keen on the wars themselves
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - alanbleiweiss (profile), 8 Jul 2012 @ 12:28pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Ethics
      anyone who is "pro steal resources from other countries" to the point where they make up attacks against our country in order to justify war, and to jack up military spending to insane amounts, is, without a doubt, pro war. To think or believe otherwise is naive.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- apauld (profile), 8 Jul 2012 @ 12:01am
  
  Re: Ethics
  sorry, but after reading Wally's post for the last 36 hours or so, I have to go there.....
  
  Wally, Mike asked that this remain a discussion about the copyright issues. Despite Mike's request you have thoroughly attempted to make this about your religious beliefs.
  
  So here is what I believe; you, Wally, are the reason that long ago women should have been forced to abort babies. You should have never been allowed to exist in any sane society.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2012 @ 9:26am
  
  Re: Ethics
  wow, your an idiot
  
  first, any doctor who does any surgery to not save your life, is guitly, according to you
  
  and it is a bunch of useless words
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad Mac (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 1:44pm

Religious groups.
It should be known that the CBR has almost no connections to any religious groups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2012 @ 2:40pm
  
  Re: Religious groups.
  Irrelevant
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Wally (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 2:52pm
    
    Re: Re: Religious groups.
    Don't be too hasty with the irrelevance argument. The group is an anti abortion group, but they have medical basis to back up their facts. But yes Sad Mac, it is sort of irrelevant to state it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2012 @ 3:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Religious groups.
      Umm, you do know the avatars show your IP right? Trolling attempt: FAILURE.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - AzureSky (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 4:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Religious groups.
        opps he must have missed that blatantly obvious thing(to anybody whos spent any time here)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2012 @ 1:54pm

I see this akin to quote mining - editing something totally out of context into something which is the exact oppose of the original message.

Whether this is fair use or not - it probably is, but I think it's an underhanded way of doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tony MC (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 5:03pm

Criticism
I like how people who hold a rigid set of beliefs don't allow comments on their videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Jul 2012 @ 5:31pm

I've had first had experience with the CBR. During my freshmen year in highschool they thought it would be a good idea to protest in front of our school with billboards of aborted fetuses just in time for the 8AM buses to show up. My high school was also about 500 feet from an elementary school so all the kindergarteners got to see the billboards as well. I regard them as professional trolls just like the WBC and any message they are trying to get across gets lost in the fact that they're giant flaming asshats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
alanbleiweiss (profile), 6 Jul 2012 @ 11:37pm

wait. I'm confused. we're talking abortion right? Like the abortion that is our federal government? the abortion that is USTR? RIAA? Charles Carreon?

Oh... the OTHER abortion.

NAFTA.

got it.

Yeah - those abortions should all be illegal and oh. wait. were my reference parody? yeah. fair use!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Claudia, 7 Jul 2012 @ 6:04pm

I think it counts
This is definitely parody. I agree with the ruling.

But I also had to comment to say that when I went to the "pro choice" page to look at their original video I thought I had made a mistake and gone to the "pro life" page!

How can those people call themselves "pro choice"? They go on and on about what a "difficult" decision abortion is.

If I went to get an abortion and someone started talking about the "difficult choice" of abortion I'd think I'd wandered into one of those fake clinics the evangelicals had set up. News Flash: For most of us getting an abortion is not "difficult" on any level.

To make it worse... they reassure the viewer over and over again that "good women" get abortions all the time. How condescending is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lance (profile), 7 Jul 2012 @ 10:04pm

Hate to see where this would have gone...
At the top of the page, it was requested that the posts be focused on the relevance of the copyright ruling. I didn't get more than a few posts in before I started seeing posts from both sides of the abortion debate. By the time I got through half of the posts, it seemed like the copyright issues had been completely forgotten.

I understand the passionate beliefs on both sides of the abortion debate, but I'm disappointed to see that so many in this community cannot keep to the subject at hand. /end-rant

I wonder if the judge made use of the convoluted argument because he didn't find the usage consistent with "fair usage" (i .e. it was too transformative) . Thus, his only alternative was to up the ante by calling it parody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Jul 2012 @ 3:10pm

isn't gestating a fetus a form of "copying" ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- alanbleiweiss (profile), 9 Jul 2012 @ 3:35pm
  
  Re:
  and isn't abortion killing innovation?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]