The Article Recut, Reframe, Recycle is about the kinds of uses of copyrighted works that are legal online. This article applies to me on many levels due to the fact I am a film major and have to deal with legal issues pertaining to copyrighted material all the time. The article describes many ways to quote copyrighted material in user generated videos. For example, satire and parody are spoofs of popular mass media in ways that demonstrate makers’ power over the material. I was taught that usually parodying popular figures or shows is one of the safest ways to remix the original material without copy write issues.
Another feature in the article describes incidental use of copyrighted materiel in videos. The example the article describes is Let’s Go Crazy #1, a video of an 18-month-old child dancing to Prince’s song “Let’s Go Crazy. It was later taken down from YouTube and other user-generated video websites for copyright infringement and because Prince is a douche bag. Incidental use applies to me because when I was a sophomore, I made a skim compilation video for a sponsored skimmer. Similar to the Prince example, I used music that I had permission to use but in one funny scene of guys telling jokes, I think, Jay-Z was playing on the stereo in the background. I later had to cut the scene due to copyright issues because they were planning to put the video online.
The clip below is a redub of the GI JOE cartoon PSAs. How is this legal? Does it fall under satire and parody?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel like the legal aspects of this issue are something of a slippery slope. As far as i can tell what is legal in terms of remixes or re-cuts is based on an opinion or a judgment call. When you ask how something like this video is legal, at first i felt as if it should be as well, seeing as to how its material stolen directly from somewhere else, even though the audio sample differs, however i rethought that and figured, how is this any worse than a parody, or something of that nature? It still has 'stolen' aspects of an original work, even if they may not be as direct. Needless to sat i have mixed emotions on the legal aspects of this topic.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned in our discussion how I thought as long as the video maker didn't receive materialistic reward of any kind, it would be okay. But of course the online video and the maker should be carefully analyzed according to the four considerations:the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, the effect on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. And therefore the result of fair legal use would be determined. In the video given seems to fall under the category of a parody. I personally don't know the maker's purpose but I would think the material was used to make entertainment, something to make a good laugh out of. But problem comes in where the value of the original work could change because of this parody. What could be the effects of this video made to the original piece?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the video would be classified as a parody. I have watched many of these G.I. Joe clips, and the dubbed voices completely change the situation that is being portrayed in the clip. While the creator used the actual graphics to the real G.I. Joe video,the voices are completely different, which is enough for it to be considered a new piece of work.
ReplyDeleteI think the video could be considered legal, because the content has changed dramatically. I personally love these G.I. Joe parodies. The fact that it's taken from a serious cartoon and made funny makes it just that much better.