Pete, I enjoyed your slideshow for your blog this week. I think you highlight a good point, that copyright law is often confusing. I like how you used the Hitler parodies as an example. Although the parody video uses movie footage, it is for a completely different footage. The people who post the parodies are not posting them to show part of the movie, they are posting them as something that is humorous and can bring other people joy and amusement. I think that it is interesting that these videos received a takedown notice but then were able to essentially justify their existence and intent. Good work this week and thanks for bringing some interesting material to the table!
First, congratulations on your presentations so far! You have used a nice variety of formats to blog and I have been enjoying each one of them.
I think that you exemplified perfectly the spirit of Reclaiming Fair Use (Aufderheide & Jaszi, 2011) with the individual analysis of the Hitler video parody in your slide #4. The authors encourage the readers several times (Chapter 2, p. 24; Chapter 5, p. 78; or Chapter 10, p.136) to perform an individual reflection of each claim of fair use while using copyrighted material. And this is just what you have done. Mission accomplished.
The other point I would like to comment is related to your question #3 from that slide, where you mention your surprise that someone had indeed required YouTube to take it down, even when it is clear for you that is a “satire.” I would have agreed with you until I read this book but now it turns out there is a slight difference (Appendix D, p. 174), and this creative clip should be considered parody. Besides, in your link to the Wikipedia article about “The Downfall” movie, it is mentioned the many parodies this brief cut has inspired. Copyright holders have been traditionally empowered by the law and a history of court sentences but the authors demonstrate that courts have shifted that tendency since 2006 (Chapter 6, p. 80.) That could be a plausible explanation for the take down request, since the movie is from 2004: copyright holders still believed they were going to be favored against remixers. Another long-shot possible explanation for trying to take down the video: the people who filed the take down request considered it a satire instead of a parody and they knew courts have been more willing to grant fair use protections to parodies than to satires (Marshall & Siciliano, 2006 - http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf). Fortunately, it is a parody and those have been traditionally granted under fair use.
I loved your format for your post and the hilarious Hitler video satire of fair use and it's goofy interpretations. This put a new view on it for me and I doubt I would have ever run across these videos had it not been for your post. I loved the irony in that the video that was intended to parody fair use and Youtube take down notices received a take down notice. Nice post!
Pete,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your slideshow for your blog this week. I think you highlight a good point, that copyright law is often confusing. I like how you used the Hitler parodies as an example. Although the parody video uses movie footage, it is for a completely different footage. The people who post the parodies are not posting them to show part of the movie, they are posting them as something that is humorous and can bring other people joy and amusement. I think that it is interesting that these videos received a takedown notice but then were able to essentially justify their existence and intent. Good work this week and thanks for bringing some interesting material to the table!
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteFirst, congratulations on your presentations so far! You have used a nice variety of formats to blog and I have been enjoying each one of them.
I think that you exemplified perfectly the spirit of Reclaiming Fair Use (Aufderheide & Jaszi, 2011) with the individual analysis of the Hitler video parody in your slide #4. The authors encourage the readers several times (Chapter 2, p. 24; Chapter 5, p. 78; or Chapter 10, p.136) to perform an individual reflection of each claim of fair use while using copyrighted material. And this is just what you have done. Mission accomplished.
The other point I would like to comment is related to your question #3 from that slide, where you mention your surprise that someone had indeed required YouTube to take it down, even when it is clear for you that is a “satire.” I would have agreed with you until I read this book but now it turns out there is a slight difference (Appendix D, p. 174), and this creative clip should be considered parody. Besides, in your link to the Wikipedia article about “The Downfall” movie, it is mentioned the many parodies this brief cut has inspired. Copyright holders have been traditionally empowered by the law and a history of court sentences but the authors demonstrate that courts have shifted that tendency since 2006 (Chapter 6, p. 80.) That could be a plausible explanation for the take down request, since the movie is from 2004: copyright holders still believed they were going to be favored against remixers. Another long-shot possible explanation for trying to take down the video: the people who filed the take down request considered it a satire instead of a parody and they knew courts have been more willing to grant fair use protections to parodies than to satires (Marshall & Siciliano, 2006 - http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellectual/roundtables/0506_outline.pdf). Fortunately, it is a parody and those have been traditionally granted under fair use.
Thanks for sharing!
Hi Pete,
ReplyDeleteI loved your format for your post and the hilarious Hitler video satire of fair use and it's goofy interpretations. This put a new view on it for me and I doubt I would have ever run across these videos had it not been for your post. I loved the irony in that the video that was intended to parody fair use and Youtube take down notices received a take down notice. Nice post!