Things You Don't See Every Day: MPAA Argues For Fair Use In Court

from the say-what-now? dept

Wed, Apr 10th 2013 8:44am — Mike Masnick

April Fool's Day has already passed, so it appears this is legit. Yes, the MPAA has jumped into a court case to argue in favor of fair use. A few years ago, we wrote about the fact that there are actually lawyers whose main job is to watch movies to make sure every single thing that's in there that might be covered by trademark or copyright is licensed. This leads to some crazy situations, such as the re-release of Titanic requiring a new license to show some of the paintings hanging in the film.

But what happens when a work in a film is infringing? Well, that's the case at hand here. Apparently, the Baltimore Ravens football team used a logo designed by a fan for a few years, violating his copyright. The court ruled against the team, but also didn't give the artist any money, since it noted that any profits from the team had nothing to do with the logo.

The artist, Frederick Bouchat, has continued to sue, trying to find creative ways to get some cash. Here's THREsq summarizing the recent lawsuits and the result:

Then, in 2008, Bouchat sued the NFL and the Baltimore Ravens again. This time, he objected to use of the old infringing logo in highlight films, on the stadium's display of old players and memorabilia. Then, a few years after that, he sued yet another time over use of the logo in documentary videos, in pictures on the stadium wall and in the Madden NFL football game, which allows users to compete with throwback uniforms.

Last November, a federal judge declared most of the uses -- including in NFL television series and documentaries such as one that featured the player draft -- to be covered as "fair use." The judge factored in the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work. The only use that fell outside of fair use was the way in which Bouchat's logo was incorporated into a video game.

Bouchat appealed. And suddenly, the MPAA woke up and realized that fair use matters to the MPAA too. If the ruling goes in favor of Bouchat, suddenly many, many movies may be on the hook for things that happened to show up in movies that weren't properly licensed. And then, the very same MPAA, who has worked hard to limit fair use around the globe, wouldn't be very happy. So it actually had some Stanford fair use lawyers (who aren't often on the same page as the MPAA) help it draft an amicus brief explaining why fair use is important.

Bouchat asks this court to adopt a rule that would depart from well established precedent and would have the potential to interfere with important speech and expression rights. Bouchat seeks nothing less than a de facto right to control the depiction of facts—in this case, events that actually happened on the football field—simply because those facts include the fact that the players wore uniforms that include Bouchat’s copyrighted logo. It is antithetical to the purposes of copyright to use it to force an inaccurate depiction of actual events.

The potential impact of Bouchat’s claims is not limited to the Baltimore Ravens or the NFL. Many historical subjects cannot be discussed effectively without the use of copyrighted material. It would be difficult, for example, to make an effective biography of an actor without including audiovisual clips depicting his work, in order, for example, to illustrate a point about his career and impact, Hofheinz v. A & E Television Networks, 146 F.Supp.2d 442, 446–47 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (finding transformative film footage used for the purpose of enabling the viewer to understand the actor Peter Graves’ modest beginnings in the film business), or to create a comprehensive study of surrealist art without including works by Salvador Dali, to accompany the author’s commentary, see Warren Publ’g Co. v. Spurlock, 645 F.Supp.2d 402, 419 (E.D. Pa. 2009). It would be nearly impossible to document any sliver of life in a major American city without capturing vast numbers of logos, signs, billboards, and other copyrighted works along the way. Cf. ESS Entm’t 2000 v. Rock Star Videos, 547 F. 3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Possibly the only way, and certainly a reasonable way, to” recreate “look and feel” of city was “to recreate a critical mass of the businesses and buildings that constitute it,” even if protected by trademark). It would be similarly impossible to make a documentary about the healthfulness of McDonald’s food (Super Size Me) or Wal-Mart’s business practices (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price) without depicting each company’s logo.

Bouchat asks this Court to set forth a rule that would require permission for uses like these. That rule would have a profoundly negative impact on free speech and expression because rights-holders would demand some control over the way individuals or organizations are portrayed, or simply choose to prohibit unflattering or disfavored depictions.

Funny, isn't it, that this is the very same MPAA who insists that nothing about copyright law can be construed to be a limit on free speech. Well, until it's the free speech of the MPAA's studio members, I guess.

Not surprisingly, I actually agree strongly with the MPAA (who thought they'd ever see that come out of me?) that this should be fair use. I just find it funny to see the MPAA making such an argument.

134957061 Bouchat v NFL Amici IDA MPAA FIND Motion and Brief (PDF)134957061 Bouchat v NFL Amici IDA MPAA FIND Motion and Brief (Text)

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, fair use, frederick bouchat, logos
Companies: mpaa

71 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

weneedhelp (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 8:51am

who thought they'd ever see that come out of me?
The world... has ended.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 10:29am
  
  Re: who thought they'd ever see that come out of me?
  They only do what they feel is in their best interest so this all makes sense.
  MPAA is still the Enemy ! Do not be fooled by their propaganda.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 10:35am
  
  Re: who thought they'd ever see that come out of me?
  I'll be stockpiling supplies for the zombie apocalypse that is sure to come after this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
dennis deems (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:01am

You just blew our minds! Our minds have been blown!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob Buttons, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:13am

Could We Quote Them?
So if the MPAA takes someone to court over clips of videos (or the like) can we quote them as saying "It would be difficult, for example, to make an effective biography of an actor without including audiovisual clips depicting his work, in order, for example, to illustrate a point about his career and impact"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:39am
  
  Re: Could We Quote Them?
  Typically, yes. Since it is their organization that said it in a court case, and they said it in a generic manner, it's going to be very difficult for them to say otherwise later.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Yakko Warner (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:46am
    
    Re: Re: Could We Quote Them?
    ...it's going to be very difficult for them to say otherwise later.
    
    Really? Think who you're talking about here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Phillip (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:47am
  
  Re: Could We Quote Them?
  surprised they actually realized this can hurt them as well, but very glad they did. Hopefully, if they win this will help others in their fair use claims as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beech, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:15am

So what if I have someone document me going to a theatre and watching a movie. Would that be fair use as described by the MPAA, since it would be a " depiction of facts�in this case, events that actually happened in the movie theatre" and they would have no reason to complain "simply because those facts include the fact that the person being filmed did some activities that included the MPAA's copyrighted movie"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ed C., 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:25am
  
  Re:
  Even though I think you're being sarcastic, there's still a legitimate point. The answer depends upon the focus of the documentary. If it was primarily focused on the screen for the purpose of reproducing the film, it would be infringement, if it was primarily focused on you while you watch the film, it should be fair use. The theater would probably still try to kick you out, or even call the cops, and the MPAA would try to claim infringement over every barely distinguishable sound from the movie in the background.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Beech, 10 Apr 2013 @ 11:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    I was kind of envisioning the camera behind me over my shoulder so the screen is still mostly to totally visible, Mystery Science Theater 3000 style. I'm assuming an important part of the "Beech watches an entire movie" scene would be watching how I react to various things that happen on screen. Having a camera in front of me showing only my face would lose part of the message, I feel.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AndyD273 (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 12:01pm
  
  Re:
  I heard an interesting point about fair use the other day, which is that a lot of things are fair use, but that being fair use doesn't mean you won't get sued. Fair use just means that if you get sued, you have a legitimate leg to stand on in court so you hopefully wont lose everything.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ed C., 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:15am

People need to use this to their advantage. The next time the MPAA disses legitimate fair use claims from others, or simply tries to pretend fair use doesn't even exist, just point them to this.

Fan art can be seen as part of the collective culture, and the Ravens would seem to agree since they had someone make a slightly different version in color, but how aggressive was the Ravens or the NFL in enforcing copyright and trademark licensing of their version?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:16am

seems my initial suspicion was correct. there was no way that a branch of the entertainment industries in any form would argue in favour of this unless it was going to be to it's advantage. obviously the case here. these industries are the only ones i have seen that can change their minds to suit a situation more often than i change my socks! what i find totally amazing though is that no court ever calls these industries out over the way they keep changing their stance. it's very much like the revolving door that exists between working for the government then working for a branch of those industries, continuously on the move!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:16am

seems my initial suspicion was correct. there was no way that a branch of the entertainment industries in any form would argue in favour of this unless it was going to be to it's advantage. obviously the case here. these industries are the only ones i have seen that can change their minds to suit a situation more often than i change my socks! what i find totally amazing though is that no court ever calls these industries out over the way they keep changing their stance. it's very much like the revolving door that exists between working for the government then working for a branch of those industries, continuously on the move!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 1:30pm
  
  Re:
  there was no way that a branch of the entertainment industries in any form would argue in favour of this unless it was going to be to it's advantage.
  
  The more general (and still correct) form of this is: there was no way that a branch of any industry in any form would argue in favour of anything unless it was going to be to its advantage.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:20am

Interesting that they are arguing against fair use, when they are amongst those that have done their best to destroy fair use. Are they realising that the license everything approach is almost impossible to carry out in practice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:23am
  
  Re:
  I meant Arguing for
  Proof read fail!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:22am

Fair use does not apply to normal people, only the rich get fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:30am

Not even remotely fair use, they should pay
Funny, this was to me an obvious instance where fair use should not apply in any way shape or form.

It seems a clear cut case of using someone's creative willfully to your own financial advantage. If they had not used this logo they would at the very least have had to have forked out to some design company at some ludicrous fee.

This is precisely the sort of instance where fair use should not apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:43am
  
  Re: Not even remotely fair use, they should pay
  This is not about the team using the logo. The ravens already lost the case as having violated the copyright.
  
  The current case is about documentary films that show the logo.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ben S (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:56am
  
  Re: Not even remotely fair use, they should pay
  For putting the logo on the uniforms yes, but not for things like a documentary which happens to show the logo they put on the uniforms. Same with the pictures on the stadium wall, as that's showing their history (even if it is one that includes copyright infringement). I could certainly see a potential argument regarding the video game though, as that isn't about documenting anything historically, but rather just a "retro" uniform that isn't needed to play the game.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 10:19am
    
    Re: Re: Not even remotely fair use, they should pay
    Even in the case of a documentary, if it functions as a piece of advertising. If a third party was making a documentary, but the NFL is not a third party.
    
    A documentary by them about one of their teams is more like an extended advertisement than a public information piece.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:34am

Profits from the team have nothing to do with the logo
Has the judge never heard of an NFL jersey?

If the team's profits have nothing to do with the logo, offer the team a settlement where they can either pay $1-5 million or change their logo. They can decide which is cheaper. I for one am willing to bet that even if their profits have nothing to do with the logo, they'd still pay because of all the marketing and everything else they do with their logo.

If there was really no profit in a logo to the team, they'd be willing to change it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chosen Reject (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 10:15am
  
  Re: Profits from the team have nothing to do with the logo
  They did change it. I can't say whether they changed it because of this lawsuit, but their current logo is nothing like the one created by Frederick Bouchat. Teams change their logos regularly. I'm sure had they been given the choice to pay even one million dollars or change their logo, they would have just changed their logo. It'd give them an opportunity to refresh the team, make it look new and exciting, etc.
  
  Here's a brief history of NFL team logos. The Detroit Lions have change their logo twice in the last 10 years, Broncos have changed their logo twice in 20 years, and there's more. Some teams change more often than others, and some only make minor changes, but they all make changes (except the Jaguars, but they're young).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 10:23am
    
    Re: Re: Profits from the team have nothing to do with the logo
    Changing the logo of the sports team is actually extremely profitable. It's basically like making a new model of the iPhone, everyone runs out and buys brand new jerseys that have the "new" logo.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btr1701 (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 1:03pm
    
    Re: Re: Profits from the team have nothing to do with the logo
    > I'm sure had they been given the choice
    > to pay even one million dollars or change
    > their logo, they would have just changed
    > their logo. It'd give them an opportunity
    > to refresh the team, make it look new and
    > exciting, etc.
    
    Not to mention, they get to resell merchandise to every fan who already has the old stuff. Who wants to be the fan wearing yesterday's logo to the game?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 4:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Profits from the team have nothing to do with the logo
      So it's really a case of Yesterday's Enterprise leading to All Good Things...?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
[citation needed or GTFO], 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:37am

A new precedent?
Depending on how this case turns out, will it set a new precedent for future fair use cases?

Or will it just be one of those "MPAA won, now let's pretend fair use doesn't exist" type deals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:39am

Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.
If not self-blinded by your anti-copyright mania, you'd see that even the MPAA is sometimes right.

A stopped clock is right twice a day, but by constant effort Mike manages to be wrong far more often than the basic 50% chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:44am
  
  Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.
  If not self-blinded by your anti-Mike mania, you'd see that even Mike is sometimes right.
  
  A stopped clock is right twice a day, but by constant effort OOTB manages to be wrong more often than the basic 50% chance.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AC Unknown, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:46am
  
  Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.
  And you're wrong more often than Mike is, OOTB. What is the major malfunction in your brain housing group that compels you to go to a site you hate and attack its creator endlessly?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 11:20am
    
    Re: Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.
    You mean there was a time that OOTB was right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 2:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.
      Scary, isn't it?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 12:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.
      He occasionally has a valid point nestled somewhere inside his childish attacks and moronic ramblings. He manages to destroy whatever validity exists through his behaviour and inability to participate in an adult conversation, but the nuggets are occasionally (rarely) visible.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Niall (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 4:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.
        Personally, the only thing manure is good for is fertilising crops...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:51am
  
  Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.
  So being correct for 2 seconds a day is acceptable, but a sub 50% average is not?
  
  There is something going on in that head of yours, but i don't think you know what.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ninja (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 10:02am
  
  Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.
  I was wondering if the troll brains would be all scattered around techdirt virtual lounge to see any trollish comment but it seems the troll is strong in you indeed my little trolliwan!
  
  Other than that it's the usual point missed. It's getting old ootb you need to reinvent your trolling or you risk being suplanted by aj or bob. You wouldn't want to lose right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 10:07am
  
  Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.
  "If not self-blinded by your anti-copyright mania, you'd see that even the MPAA is sometimes right."
  
  If not self blinded by your anti-fair use mania, you'd see that even Mike is sometimes right, boy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Just Another Artist, 11 Apr 2013 @ 10:48pm
  
  Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.
  So do you agree that anyone who creates something automatically has the absolute right to determine how their work is copied/distributed/used or don't you?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 12 Apr 2013 @ 6:22am
    
    Re: Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.
    So do you agree that anyone who creates something automatically has the absolute right to determine how their work is copied/distributed/used or don't you?
    
    I'm not who you're asking, but I definitely don't agree with that. And in the US at least, it's empirically false. Fair use, if nothing else, means the creator does not have an absolute right of copying and distribution. And he certainly has no control whatsoever over how the work is used.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Just Another Artist, 12 Apr 2013 @ 11:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.
      Yeah the question is for out_of_the_blue who seems to be implying that Mike is correct, meaning he too supports fair use. I just want him to clarify that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:43am

Funny, isn't it, that this is the very same MPAA who insists that nothing about copyright law can be construed to be a limit on free speech. Well, until it's the free speech of the MPAA's studio members, I guess.

Wow. That's quite the straw man. The MPAA relies heavily on fair use. Give me a break with this constant hating and demonization.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:47am
  
  Re:
  Yes, the MPAA does...
  
  But if they take you to court and you try to use Fair Use as a defense, they suddenly say "it's not a legitimate defense".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Yakko Warner (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:50am
  
  Re:
  No straw man; that's actually the whole point. The MPAA relies heavily on fair use for their own work, but actively fights having their work subjected to fair use.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:51am
  
  Sometimes even Stalin is on your side.
  They are a bunch of flaming hypocrites. Much like you they want all rights for themselves and not rights for everyone else. They will fight to their last breath against something until it's in their interest to change their tune.
  
  They have no scruples, no morals, no principles. They are a like a bunch of toddlers. What's theirs is theirs and what's yours is theirs.
  
  There's really no point in sugar coating it.
  
  They steal from actors. They steal from producers. They steal from writers. They fled to Hollywood to be IP scofflaws to begin with.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 4:57am
    
    Re: Sometimes even Stalin is on your side.
    Without Stalin, the US wouldn't have been able to win the war. And the Brits would be speaking... English still ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 10:08am
  
  Re:
  "The MPAA relies heavily on fair use."
  
  For it's own profit, boy.
  But if anyone else does the same thing, they freak out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 11:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    "Boy"? Really? That's just creepy that you use that term. Makes you sound like an old Southern slave-driver.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AzureSky (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 12:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      nice ad-hom......little note for you, my great grandfather used the term "boy" alot, he had never lived in the south, infact he was born and raised here in the northwest, he used the term boy when referring to younger males AND even males his own age who refused to grow up.
      
      seems to fit you well, boy.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 1:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To be fair, it is distracting (and a little condescending).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 1:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's meant to be condescending.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 1:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ""Boy"? Really? That's just creepy that you use that term. Makes you sound like an old Southern slave-driver."
      
      Nope.
      I'm referring to your apparent immaturity and lack of judgement, boy.
      I'm a Brooklynite, born and raised (Kings Highway and Ocean Parkway, to be exact)
      And the fact you equate it with Southerners and slavery gives us an idea of your biases...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Niall (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 4:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        To be fair to him, as a non-American I 'hear' that 'boy' in some sort of Texan/Southern drawl as a result of endless media overuse of it. Good to hear it lives on in the North though!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 10:10am
  
  Re:
  Give me a break with this constant hating and demonization.
  
  After them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 10:27am
  
  Re:
  Swoosh!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DJ 0px 0px 7px #888, 10 Apr 2013 @ 10:00am

so i can sample again?
i mean if films can sample art (logos, packaging) then i can sample art (music, films)? Thats right isn't it ootb?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 10:03am

While I agree with the MPAA this time, the fact that they flip flop around so much, I want this ruling to be in favor of Bouchat. I want this to snowball on the MPAA so it causes all their copyright efforts to cripple their industry. Of course after all the damage is caused, then copyright could then be pulled back to something sensible. As long as they think they can get wiggle room in the laws to stay out of the mess they cause for everyone else, they are only encouraged to make stricter copyright laws, and just apply carefully crafted exceptions to themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 10:29am

Lol we need to save this when the MPAA comes back and argues against fair use again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 10:31am

Oh my fricken god. I was in law school in Baltimore back when this guy first starting suing. It was all anyone talked about for a while. I can't believe he's still at it.

Dude, you drew one thing. It was sort of cool. Now do the world a favor and get a real job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AzureSky (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re:
  but,but,but....that would go against the american way, to create once and have a perpetual stream of income from it.....or at least thats what the likes of OOTB and BoB and such want....
  
  I do agree with you....hell, I know people who are artists who would agree with you....gotta keep creating and working to keep getting paid.....but then again, every artist I know whos made money off their art also worked other jobs and understand that they need to keep working/creating to keep getting money.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Julian Perez, 10 Apr 2013 @ 10:44am

Not surprising, look who wrote the
The Motion of Curiae above was written by Tim Greene (not the creepy plant baby) and Julie Ahrens. Both are attorneys from the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, which emphasizes the importance of fair use in order to balance needs of copyright holders vs. freedom of expression.

These aren't hypocrite maximalists changing their tune, but tireless advocates for Fair Use and have been for years. Heck, Julie Ahrens even penned some anti-SOPA articles and a few arguing against bogus copyright claims. I can't believe the MPAA even speaks to her after that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 10:55am

Not too surprising
They aren't arguing for fair use, they're arguing for their own best interests, and it just so happens to include fair use this time around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 11:02am

Frederick Bouchat For The Win ....
I hope Frederick Bouchat does win this case. The repercussions of a win would be the MPAA and the RIAA lobbying for more fair use.

They wouldn't want the descendants of the descendants going after them because an actor read a few lines from a book, or an old movie played on a TV screen, or some music from the 1930's was used in a movie.

Then there is the serious issue of the never being able to extend copyright again. The instant copyright was extended, they would have to pay royalties on all the public domain content falling back under copyright.

What a nightmare. :)
I hope he wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Avatar28 (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 11:16am
  
  Re: Frederick Bouchat For The Win ....
  I disagree. Much as I don't like the MPAA, a win for Bouchat would be a blow to fair use via the precedent. If Bouchat loses then we have a precedent supporting fair use that can then be used in other court cases (assuming the court buys that argument, of course).
  
  Precedent supporting fair use > a loss to the MPAA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 3:45pm
    
    Re: Re: Frederick Bouchat For The Win ....
    True, but such a precedent would force the MPAA into using its prodigious lobbying power to get better statutory support for fair use. Many heads would explode.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- [citation needed or GTFO], 10 Apr 2013 @ 4:07pm
  
  Re: Frederick Bouchat For The Win ....
  2-to-1 chance that this gets settled out of court or the case is dropped and no one will be the wiser.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 7:50pm
    
    Re: Re: Frederick Bouchat For The Win ....
    " no one will be the wiser"
    
    Cat's already out of the bag. The brief has been filed and there for all posterity. This can now be used regardless of the outcome of this case. They will have a hard time backing down from this position that they have already taken, publicly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - [citation needed or GTFO], 10 Apr 2013 @ 11:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Frederick Bouchat For The Win ....
      You never know. They could downplay it until it fades away into obscurity or pull a Prenda and deny they had any involvement with the decision, blaming it on their PR. They could even come up with the whole "you're taking what we said out of context, this is what we really meant" route. I wouldn't put it past them.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ByteMaster (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 10:01am

Simple.
It's very simple... YOU wouldn't be able to make any money off your creation, or nothing more than pocket change, so MPAA claims fair use.

The MPAA on the other hand can make tons of money with their creations, so any use by you is copyright infringement.

And All Was Well In Dodd-land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Monkey (profile), 11 Apr 2013 @ 10:03am

Twilight Zone
"I actually agree strongly with the MPAA..."

The world has.gone.mad. O_O
[ link to this | view in chronology ]