4 ms·

“[I]f Disney’s position on fair use of the Estate’s copyrights were accepted one could create a two-hour documentary about the Star Wars franchise, by summarizi

“[I]f Disney’s position on fair use of the Estate’s copyrights were accepted one could create a two-hour documentary about the Star Wars franchise, by summarizing each film and using extensive clips from each film while playing the iconic Star Wars music in the background of interviews and narration, and all without permission from Disney." Great quote

vkou 8y ago
Isn't that what the (in)famous RedLetterMedia reviews of the Star Wars prequels did?
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
  That matters in practice because you're less likely to stir up the ire of IP holders, but legally, the lack of commercialization of infringing work doesn't mean much.
  - dctoedt 8y ago
    > legally, the lack of commercialization of infringing work doesn't mean much. That's not correct — according to the Copyright Act's fair-use provision, the purpose of an infringing use, including whether it's commercial or for nonprofit- or educational purposes, is the first-listed of four factors to consider in determining whether the infringing use is "fair." The Supreme Court discussed this in the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case. In that case, the owner of the copyright in the Roy Orbison classic Oh, Pretty Woman had sued 2 Live Crew for their down-and-dirty parody of the song. The Court held that the parody was fair use, even though it was commercial, largely because the parody was "transformative." [0] [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html#FNSRC9 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html#FNSRC...
- jerf 8y ago
  Yes. But... are they legal? I wouldn't consider that a sure thing. As much as I've enjoyed some of them, I've often thought the "extensive video review" industry is very likely on the wrong side of copyright. It is true they check off a lot of the fair use criteria, certainly. But one of the core determinations is "can you consume this work in lieu of the original?" and some of those things come perilously close to that line, if they don't outright cross it. Obviously, it is not the same experience, but you certainly come away from such a review knowing all the characters, all the major plot points and often a significant portion of the minor ones, probably the best special effects scenes, a decent slice of the music, and the ability to fairly thoroughly BS your way through a conversation about the movie with people who went to it the normal way without them necessarily realizing you never actually saw it.
  - guhidalg 8y ago
    The question you’re bringing up is why do people consume entertainment. Is it for the memes, or is it for the artifact (like a movie)? If you believe it’s for the memes, then extended reviews like RLM wouldnt be allowed. If you believe it’s for the artifact as the creator meant for you to consume it, then RLM is off the hook. Personally I don’t think people consume entertainment for the memes, at least not primarily. The memes arise from the interpretation of the individual and the group that consumes the entertainment. The creators of the artifact mean for you to consume it in a specific way, and if you reproduce that without their permission then you are violating copyright.
  - bonesss 8y ago
    > "can you consume this work in lieu of the original?" Grab some 8yo, throw them in front of the RLM reviews, and tell them it's Star Wars... are they gonna watch it and be equally satisfied? Extensive reviews are just like in-extensive reviews... Knowing all the characters is a staple of movie reviews in all forms, as are plot synopses. Story import of character and scene does not factor in to whether it is review-able in any medium. These issues are are applicable to most written movie reviews, book reviews, and song reviews too. They are exempt from Copyright for the same reasons. Why would we want a culture where superficial critique is acceptable, but in-depth critique is rejected? You hit the nail on the head: "it is not the same experience". If it starts providing some of the same experience, via excessive clips or music, then they infringe. Too much of a song, clips with no purpose, etc. RLM is among the better cases for meaningful reviews.
    - jerf 8y ago
      "Grab some 8yo, throw them in front of the RLM reviews, and tell them it's Star Wars... are they gonna watch it and be equally satisfied?" That is not the question the law asks. The question the law asks is the one I gave. It is naked and unashamedly commercial in nature. A more way of phrasing it might be, grab an 8yo who has not seen the movie in question, show them the review, maybe take a moment to wonder if that's necessarily a good idea for this specific review, and then ask them if they are still interested in seeing the movie. Or perhaps better, if we're talking 8, sit them in front of the movie and see if perhaps they wander away halfway through because they already know the ending. At the margin, the answer is likely to be that the review substantially reduces the need to consume the original content. That is, for a single case it's trivial to imagine anything you want happening. But if you imagine repeating that experiment thousands of times, is the desire to view going to go down? It's easy to hypothesize your kid saying "yes I still want to see it all the way through in fact I want it more than ever" but that's just an assertion moreso than an argument. It's a possible outcome, but I find it much easier to believe that at the margin, desire is reduced. In that case it would be very likely to fall afoul of current fair use law; even given that again I fully stipulate their superficial conformance to a number of the 4-part test for fair use in US judicial decisions they could still lose.
- empath75 8y ago
  Came here to say exactly that.
  - rublev 8y ago
    But you didn't say it, so why post?
- crooked-v 8y ago
  Those did have the significant difference of not being aired on primetime TV for profit, though.
  - vkou 8y ago
    I am pretty sure someone in RLM makes a profit from these productions. If they don't, I'd be disappointed. It's even worse then being aired on primetime TV - it was put out on the wide-open internet, for anyone and everyone to see.
    - jerf 8y ago
      I am unclear on why the parent comment is (was) being downvoted. It is relevant, and very likely true. Red Letter Media shows every sign to me of being one of those little 3-4 person companies living on YouTube revenue. The extensive movie reviews aren't all they do but it's certainly a non-trivial portion of their reputation they are monetizing.
- bonesss 8y ago
  That is not even remotely close to what RedLetterMedia did... RLM made a critique and review -- distinctly mentioned in fair use laws -- using star wars clips. Absolutely legal, 100%, explicitly protected. Movie reviews get to show bits of movies, book reviews get to mention characters, etc etc within strict guidelines (hence the re-release of the review). What the lawyers are talking about in this case is showing almost all of Star Wars with some interviews in front of it, calling it a "documentary", and then having full usage to complete songs. Very different. They are talking about other publishers sneakily re-releasing Star Wars for profit, not reviews.

vkou 8y ago

Isn't that what the (in)famous RedLetterMedia reviews of the Star Wars prequels did?

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 8y ago
That matters in practice because you're less likely to stir up the ire of IP holders, but legally, the lack of commercialization of infringing work doesn't mean much.
- dctoedt 8y ago
  > legally, the lack of commercialization of infringing work doesn't mean much. That's not correct — according to the Copyright Act's fair-use provision, the purpose of an infringing use, including whether it's commercial or for nonprofit- or educational purposes, is the first-listed of four factors to consider in determining whether the infringing use is "fair." The Supreme Court discussed this in the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case. In that case, the owner of the copyright in the Roy Orbison classic Oh, Pretty Woman had sued 2 Live Crew for their down-and-dirty parody of the song. The Court held that the parody was fair use, even though it was commercial, largely because the parody was "transformative." [0] [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html#FNSRC9 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html#FNSRC...
jerf 8y ago
Yes. But... are they legal? I wouldn't consider that a sure thing. As much as I've enjoyed some of them, I've often thought the "extensive video review" industry is very likely on the wrong side of copyright. It is true they check off a lot of the fair use criteria, certainly. But one of the core determinations is "can you consume this work in lieu of the original?" and some of those things come perilously close to that line, if they don't outright cross it. Obviously, it is not the same experience, but you certainly come away from such a review knowing all the characters, all the major plot points and often a significant portion of the minor ones, probably the best special effects scenes, a decent slice of the music, and the ability to fairly thoroughly BS your way through a conversation about the movie with people who went to it the normal way without them necessarily realizing you never actually saw it.
- guhidalg 8y ago
  The question you’re bringing up is why do people consume entertainment. Is it for the memes, or is it for the artifact (like a movie)? If you believe it’s for the memes, then extended reviews like RLM wouldnt be allowed. If you believe it’s for the artifact as the creator meant for you to consume it, then RLM is off the hook. Personally I don’t think people consume entertainment for the memes, at least not primarily. The memes arise from the interpretation of the individual and the group that consumes the entertainment. The creators of the artifact mean for you to consume it in a specific way, and if you reproduce that without their permission then you are violating copyright.
- bonesss 8y ago
  > "can you consume this work in lieu of the original?" Grab some 8yo, throw them in front of the RLM reviews, and tell them it's Star Wars... are they gonna watch it and be equally satisfied? Extensive reviews are just like in-extensive reviews... Knowing all the characters is a staple of movie reviews in all forms, as are plot synopses. Story import of character and scene does not factor in to whether it is review-able in any medium. These issues are are applicable to most written movie reviews, book reviews, and song reviews too. They are exempt from Copyright for the same reasons. Why would we want a culture where superficial critique is acceptable, but in-depth critique is rejected? You hit the nail on the head: "it is not the same experience". If it starts providing some of the same experience, via excessive clips or music, then they infringe. Too much of a song, clips with no purpose, etc. RLM is among the better cases for meaningful reviews.
  - jerf 8y ago
    "Grab some 8yo, throw them in front of the RLM reviews, and tell them it's Star Wars... are they gonna watch it and be equally satisfied?" That is not the question the law asks. The question the law asks is the one I gave. It is naked and unashamedly commercial in nature. A more way of phrasing it might be, grab an 8yo who has not seen the movie in question, show them the review, maybe take a moment to wonder if that's necessarily a good idea for this specific review, and then ask them if they are still interested in seeing the movie. Or perhaps better, if we're talking 8, sit them in front of the movie and see if perhaps they wander away halfway through because they already know the ending. At the margin, the answer is likely to be that the review substantially reduces the need to consume the original content. That is, for a single case it's trivial to imagine anything you want happening. But if you imagine repeating that experiment thousands of times, is the desire to view going to go down? It's easy to hypothesize your kid saying "yes I still want to see it all the way through in fact I want it more than ever" but that's just an assertion moreso than an argument. It's a possible outcome, but I find it much easier to believe that at the margin, desire is reduced. In that case it would be very likely to fall afoul of current fair use law; even given that again I fully stipulate their superficial conformance to a number of the 4-part test for fair use in US judicial decisions they could still lose.
empath75 8y ago
Came here to say exactly that.
- rublev 8y ago
  But you didn't say it, so why post?
crooked-v 8y ago
Those did have the significant difference of not being aired on primetime TV for profit, though.
- vkou 8y ago
  I am pretty sure someone in RLM makes a profit from these productions. If they don't, I'd be disappointed. It's even worse then being aired on primetime TV - it was put out on the wide-open internet, for anyone and everyone to see.
  - jerf 8y ago
    I am unclear on why the parent comment is (was) being downvoted. It is relevant, and very likely true. Red Letter Media shows every sign to me of being one of those little 3-4 person companies living on YouTube revenue. The extensive movie reviews aren't all they do but it's certainly a non-trivial portion of their reputation they are monetizing.
bonesss 8y ago
That is not even remotely close to what RedLetterMedia did... RLM made a critique and review -- distinctly mentioned in fair use laws -- using star wars clips. Absolutely legal, 100%, explicitly protected. Movie reviews get to show bits of movies, book reviews get to mention characters, etc etc within strict guidelines (hence the re-release of the review). What the lawyers are talking about in this case is showing almost all of Star Wars with some interviews in front of it, calling it a "documentary", and then having full usage to complete songs. Very different. They are talking about other publishers sneakily re-releasing Star Wars for profit, not reviews.