14 total posts
Maybe Anne has this wrong.
I didn't notice the author was Anne Beston. Not the most tech savy author.
I cannot get Utube to comment on this but It looks like the "posters" .. That is Uploaders have been threatened with suspension, not the viewers.
But can anyoone confirm what is ans is not fair use when it comes to parody of a website or Video clip.
Were they really in breech of copyright??
Second report confirms my original fears
YouTube sent emails to subscribers saying anyone downloading the spoof video risked having their YouTube account "deleted".
I didn't even know you needed an account to download from utube
Forget censorship, Copyright laws are even more powerfull.
I still want to know if parody's are legal, or if you are close to their logo can they shut you down now??
You will find that companies enforce very strict rules around how their trademarks (ie logos) are displayed. Most state that you are not to go changing them, for example, changing telecom into telecon.
I am now interested what constitutes fair use after all you are allowed domain names in the format of [companyname]sucks.com and so on.
The Right to Parody
It is my understanding that you have the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression - a parody is a method of expression so yes, parodies are legal.
My explanation is really bad (I'm not gifted with words it appears) however I know that it is not illegal to create parodies - under American law anyway.
As for the video, all I can say is that I love the ability in Quick Time to save content to your computer with just two clicks! I have a copy sitting on my disk! Just do I dare publish it?
Parody and Copyright
The only things I can see why YouTube pulled the video is that it used the video in question instead of creating a video that just looked liked the original. I think it's akin to karoke, since some bands do not have licensed karoke music, but it could be considered parody if you sing for that intention.
Not on utube anyway, They have bowed ...
I just got this weblog entry ... which looks like its actually based on understanding.
its the uploders getting the message
Repeat incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to avoid future strikes against your account, please delete any videos to which you do not own the rights, and refrain from uploading additional videos that infringe on the copyrights of others. For more information about YouTube's copyright policy, please read the Copyright Tips guide.
So in utubes view parody's are not legal and are a breach of copyright ... And right or wrong, if you argue ... We'll just delete your account
So There (INSERT RASPBERRY NOISE HERE)
I have done some homework...
Re: Using Trademarks
Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber, 29 F. Supp. 2d 1161, 1163-64 (C.D. Cal. 1998).
?An individual who wishes to engage in consumer commentary must have the full range of marks that the trademark owner has to identify the trademark owner as the object of the criticism. ? Id. At 1165 n.4.
so it seems to be fair use
In this case the use of the trademark is Fair use as they are being shown as the one for whom the ridicule is aimed
Ironically neither Google Video or Ourmedia have removed the content, Possibly as the copyright pages show it to be a spoof using "Partial content" for parody
Look like utube saw a letter from a lawyer and reated rather than doing any sort of checking
In the meantime the News is generating a lot of interest.
Utube got to 35000 hits and other sites can look forward to similar traffic All Telecom did was make more people aware of it.
Trademark And Copyright
Trademark and copyright are too different issues. A parody video could use the logo of the company being parodied, but using the video feed itself is problematic.
If that were true ???
How would twisted tunes, Weird Al and Mad Magazine stay in business.
The Video footage was a montage made from bits of different adds and remerged into a new montage, New audio was run over it and a whole new intro was done.
In Net Terms ... Its a mashup
In sort, I would lve to hae seen a Kiwi firm or user sued for this as I can't see that in NZ they have a leg to stand on.
(NT) Weird Al would get permission (or at lest used to)
If he uses the same score .. yes
The music and the lyrics are copyrighted seperately, so you need permission to perform the music. (actually you need only pay the performance fee.
But the copyright arguement is pretty flimsy.
And according to telecom .. They were protecting the logo .. Their Brand ...
(NT) Hey youtube, can i get you a tissue for those tears?