7 ms·

Very important to note that the Midler case has very narrow interpretation. From the Opinion: > We need not and do not go so far as to hold that every imitatio

by css 6y ago

Very important to note that the Midler case has very narrow interpretation. From the Opinion: > We need not and do not go so far as to hold that every imitation of a voice to advertise merchandise is actionable. We hold only that when a distinctive voice of a professional singer is widely known and is deliberately imitated in order to sell a product, the sellers have appropriated what is not theirs and have committed a tort in California.

AlexanderNull 6y ago
Videos on YouTube are selling advertisements so wouldn't this apply here?
- jszymborski 6y ago
  "the sellers have appropriated what is not theirs" IANAL but I think the argument can be made that YT are the sellers here and they are protected by the DMCA
- zucker42 6y ago
  Some differences that would probably affect things in court: 1. It's parody. Parody has specific statutory protection. 2. It's clearly labelled as speech synthesis. 3. It doesn't stand in for any of the original works. The market for deep fakes is much different than that for songs or presidential speeches.
  - roywiggins 6y ago
    Is it a parody as understood by the law, though? How is it parodying Jay-Z? It's definitely "for fun", but it's not clear that it's making fun of or commenting on Jay-Z. It's really not clear to me. This page cites a case where someone imitated Dr Seuss' literary voice and lost. https://www.cotmanip.com/articles/fair-use-parody https://www.cotmanip.com/articles/fair-use-parody
    - markmark 6y ago
      This is the point I was going to make. For a parody fair-use defence to be valid, you need to be parodying the thing you are infringing on, and as much as people always say "oh this is parody so it's clear fair use" by the accounts I've seen (such as Penny Arcade's Strawberry Shortcake comic) that can be a difficult defence to actually mount.
      - roywiggins 6y ago
        The author even says that he didn't pick the texts to comment on the voice in particular, but that doing the same text (the copypasta, the Bible, etc) with each voice was just convenient. It's one thing to impersonate someone to make fun of them, but he's not picking texts for them that way. A Bush impersonator reading the phone book isn't obviously parodying Bush unless he starts throwing in comedy Bushisms or exaggerating the voice for effect. Some Elvis impersonators are parodying Elvis but a lot are just doing a straight recapitulation of his look and voice.
- gnopgnip 6y ago
  No. The video in question was not. And more generally just because an ad plays along side a video does not mean the video itself is a commercial work, in the same way a newspaper or magazine can have ads alongside editorial content.
shawnz 6y ago
This doesn't seem to narrow the interpretation very much to me besides noting that imitating a random, unrecognizable stranger off the street would be a different situation.
- Cacti 6y ago
  It very much narrows it to impersonating a well known voice _in order to to sell a product_, therefore the individual is _due proceeds based upon those sales_. Impersonating a well known person for other reasons (parody, political or religious expression, etc.) would not fall under this precedent. ‘In order to sell’ also may not cover all business transactions if they are not the primary purpose, or at least that is what the defense will be partly based on. In other words, just because a video is monetized does not necessarily mean it falls under this ruling.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    > It very much narrows it to impersonating a well known voice _in order to to sell a product_, therefore the individual is _due proceeds based upon those sales_. Impersonating a well known person for other reasons (parody, political or religious expression, etc.) would not fall under this precedent. Isn't that already covered by the fair use doctrine though? It wouldn't be a matter of copyright to begin with in those other cases.
mc32 6y ago
During Presidents’ Day car ads are run that contain impersonations of past and present presidents, they are impersonated for commercial advantage, do they get prior permission before running those radio ads?

by css 6y ago

AlexanderNull 6y ago

Videos on YouTube are selling advertisements so wouldn't this apply here?

jszymborski 6y ago
"the sellers have appropriated what is not theirs" IANAL but I think the argument can be made that YT are the sellers here and they are protected by the DMCA
zucker42 6y ago
Some differences that would probably affect things in court: 1. It's parody. Parody has specific statutory protection. 2. It's clearly labelled as speech synthesis. 3. It doesn't stand in for any of the original works. The market for deep fakes is much different than that for songs or presidential speeches.
- roywiggins 6y ago
  Is it a parody as understood by the law, though? How is it parodying Jay-Z? It's definitely "for fun", but it's not clear that it's making fun of or commenting on Jay-Z. It's really not clear to me. This page cites a case where someone imitated Dr Seuss' literary voice and lost. https://www.cotmanip.com/articles/fair-use-parody https://www.cotmanip.com/articles/fair-use-parody
  - markmark 6y ago
    This is the point I was going to make. For a parody fair-use defence to be valid, you need to be parodying the thing you are infringing on, and as much as people always say "oh this is parody so it's clear fair use" by the accounts I've seen (such as Penny Arcade's Strawberry Shortcake comic) that can be a difficult defence to actually mount.
    - roywiggins 6y ago
      The author even says that he didn't pick the texts to comment on the voice in particular, but that doing the same text (the copypasta, the Bible, etc) with each voice was just convenient. It's one thing to impersonate someone to make fun of them, but he's not picking texts for them that way. A Bush impersonator reading the phone book isn't obviously parodying Bush unless he starts throwing in comedy Bushisms or exaggerating the voice for effect. Some Elvis impersonators are parodying Elvis but a lot are just doing a straight recapitulation of his look and voice.
gnopgnip 6y ago
No. The video in question was not. And more generally just because an ad plays along side a video does not mean the video itself is a commercial work, in the same way a newspaper or magazine can have ads alongside editorial content.

shawnz 6y ago

This doesn't seem to narrow the interpretation very much to me besides noting that imitating a random, unrecognizable stranger off the street would be a different situation.

Cacti 6y ago
It very much narrows it to impersonating a well known voice _in order to to sell a product_, therefore the individual is _due proceeds based upon those sales_. Impersonating a well known person for other reasons (parody, political or religious expression, etc.) would not fall under this precedent. ‘In order to sell’ also may not cover all business transactions if they are not the primary purpose, or at least that is what the defense will be partly based on. In other words, just because a video is monetized does not necessarily mean it falls under this ruling.
- shawnz 6y ago
  > It very much narrows it to impersonating a well known voice _in order to to sell a product_, therefore the individual is _due proceeds based upon those sales_. Impersonating a well known person for other reasons (parody, political or religious expression, etc.) would not fall under this precedent. Isn't that already covered by the fair use doctrine though? It wouldn't be a matter of copyright to begin with in those other cases.

mc32 6y ago

During Presidents’ Day car ads are run that contain impersonations of past and present presidents, they are impersonated for commercial advantage, do they get prior permission before running those radio ads?