Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MorleyDev]

Bump: Added Blizzard Entertainment
"The only exceptions to this rule are if you participate in partner programs with YouTube, Justin.tv, Blip.tv, Own3d.tv, or Ustream.tv (the �Production Websites�) whereby a Production Website may pay you for views of a Production if you are accepted into their partner program."
Source: http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/legal/videopolicy.html

[fenrif]

What about with an MST3K rifftrack over the top of the audio? Also if the audio is considered the entirity of the work dispite being only a fraction of the finished product, then surely that could be applied to everything in the film?

(Did you study law, or am I just badgering you with questions you have to go look up? If so feel free to just tell me to find it out for myself )

Well, assuming Your Own satire, and parody of the Works, overlaid the Audio.

Then we go into a few areas.

If The Works audio track is heard in its entirety under your Work.

Then since you're using the Work in its entirety, it's not Fair Use.  Though the Parody does add transformative elements, and your none commercial intentions for posting it on youtube, aren't probably enough to make a claim it's fair use.

Now, MTS3K, for their show, they had to buy rights for the movie, so they could do their Riff Trax dubbing on top of the audio. Which is why MST3K used old, bad movies. It was cheap.

Now, if you look at their modern reincarnation, RiffTrax. Their audio  parody is no way attached to the Works. You have to buy them separately, then play them separately (though concurrently). And the Synch Checks for the Rifftrax is about four lines. Those Four Lines are not Key Moments in the Film. And its audio for this check is done without using the audio from the Movie.

Huh, fair doos. Seems wierd that you can completely loose the main focus of the medium (I.E. video in cinema) and it is still considered the entirety of the work. Doesn't honestly surprise me though, I'm honestly surprised you guys are allowed to even say negative things about movies/music/games over there anymore.

[Sowelu]

Well, it's the entirety of the audio, from beginning to end with no discretion used in choosing bits and pieces.  But who cares about actors' voices anyway?  I mean it's not like there's animated films (where their voices are the only parts of them you experience), and it's not like there are blind listeners.  Besides, nobody's ever put a TV on in the background and listened to it while they do other stuff.  And music videos?  Nope, they don't exist.

[fenrif]

If you don't think the "moving pictures" part of cinema is the mediums defining and most important characteristic then I honestly think you've entirely missed the point of it. Obviously a film is the sum of its parts and each aspect of cinema is important, but I'm worried you're deliberatly trying to miss my point here. :S

[MrWiggles]

If you don't think the "moving pictures" part of cinema is the mediums defining and most important characteristic then I honestly think you've entirely missed the point of it. Obviously a film is the sum of its parts and each aspect of cinema is important, but I'm worried you're deliberatly trying to miss my point here. :S

The Work is the sum of its parts yes, but Audio portion, of the multi media IP can be a large portion of it. And its defiantly a large portion of it for a movie.

Just hosting the Audio, isn't hosting 50% of the movie, or whatever percentage you think it was, it's 100% of the Audio of the movie.

Again, Fair Use is about using small portions, not using a Work in its entirety or, now, for this hair splitting, part of the works in its entirety.

And if you have to question weather you can criticize (eg say bad things) about a Work, then I dont think you've absorb anything form this conversation.

[fenrif]

I was pointing out how the US copyright laws have changed over the years to basically be entirely one sided in favour of the buisnesses and producers, not actually suggesting that I think people can't criticise works.

And I get the whole "United States fair use policy is based around small portions" you don't need to keep repeating it, I was commenting on how absurd it is that each individual part of a work is considered the entirety of the work. Sorry if I didn't communicate that properly.

[MrWiggles]

We havent discussed at all about how US Copy Right law has evolved over the last couple of decades, though that's an interesting discussion in itself.

But yea, the multimedia of the IP is all copy. I dont understand why that's surprising. Honestly, I dont what country where you could strip out the parts of an IP, and use it for whatever.

[Sowelu]

Honestly, I don't see how it's absurd.  It's quite reasonable for a content creator (not crazy rich publisher) to want things to work that way.  It's certainly sensible for a composer to be annoyed if copyright offers no protection at all for the music he composes for a movie, just because it's the audio.

The main part about copyright that's become crazier over the years is the length (and damages for violations).  Other than that it seems quite fine to me.

[MrWiggles]

The length itself, for myself at least, doesnt seem that absurd to me. Now, Software Copyright is far to long.

But, copyright used to default to family members, as part of the estate, but now there a lot of IP that created as works-for-hire, and there multitude of companies that derive a living off a selection of IP.

[Brons]

The whole fair use argument is irrelevant because Youtube will not accept it for monetization. They require written documentation and even then their review process might randomly disable your video's.

[MrWiggles]

I'm glad youtube wont accept LPs as Fair Use, since it isn't.

[Brons]

But some publishers do give you permission if you ask and Youtube will respect that (most of the time, sometimes they're just plain retarded over there). Sadly, I don't know about any other publishers who give permission except those in the OP. I contacted Kalypso Media recently but I haven't heard back from them yet.

The thing that annoys me though is that organisations like The Game Station and Machinima basically give their partners blanket permission to use gameplay footage in their video's and Youtube basically lets it slide because they're so big. It's rather unfair to the small boys on Youtube and it hampers competition. But money talks, I guess.

[MrWiggles]

But some publishers do give you permission if you ask and Youtube will respect that (most of the time, sometimes they're just plain retarded over there). Sadly, I don't know about any other publishers who give permission except those in the OP. I contacted Kalypso Media recently but I haven't heard back from them yet.

The thing that annoys me though is that organisations like The Game Station and Machinima basically give their partners blanket permission to use gameplay footage in their video's and Youtube basically lets it slide because they're so big. It's rather unfair to the small boys on Youtube and it hampers competition. But money talks, I guess.

The Game Station in generally is Fair Use. I'm wii bit short on sleep, so I cant recall it's entire library video library. (Is Husky's LP of SC1 on TSG?)

As for Machinima.com, Machinima.com is fairly old place. I think 10 years old. It was founded with the intent to expose and promote Machinima, so it made a point to have good relations with games that proven popular with machinist. I wouldnt be really surprised if it has permission to use show those LPs and machina, and game derived shows (Such as Sonic for Hire or Megaman Dies at the End).

They're long standing and popularity (and not being dicks) probably greatly matter more then any sort of money. As I, personally dont know of any license for Machinima or LPs. (Actually, that's not true. Red vs. Blue does have quite a generous license to make halo machinima, but I dont think Rooster Teeth had to pay for it. And it seem that 343 Studio has accepted this license, or granted a similar one.)

Money doens't really matter here to my knowledge.

[fenrif]

The length itself, for myself at least, doesnt seem that absurd to me. Now, Software Copyright is far to long.

But, copyright used to default to family members, as part of the estate, but now there a lot of IP that created as works-for-hire, and there multitude of companies that derive a living off a selection of IP.

We'll if you're going way back to the original copyright I think it was something like 50 years after the creation of the work or the life of the creator, whichever was first. Something like that, it's been a while since I studied it so I can't remember. It was certainly never intended to be something passed down through generations.

[MrWiggles]

The length varies by country. Most modern copy right law, to my knowledge extends from combo of Italian and English copyright.

It was really about protecting your right to produce copies and stop others from doing so. The estate would derive a wealth from the control of copies.

And for the part, Copyright law still does this, but it's 400-500 years of laws being compounded on top of each other is where there is a real issue.

The other big issue with Copyright is that it works under the assumption of world were producing copies and distributing was hard, and expensive. It doesn't work well under the digital age, where producing copies and distributing them is trivial.   

But, I'm still in favor of Copyright, I firmly believe the copy right holder is in control of the Works.