4 ms·

Devil's advocate: where do you draw the line? MIT did a Gangnam style video, did they pay Psy for the right to do so? If BMW were to do a Gangnam style video,

Devil's advocate: where do you draw the line? MIT did a Gangnam style video, did they pay Psy for the right to do so? If BMW were to do a Gangnam style video, surely Psy would expect to be paid, right? Why BMW and why not MIT? We are in a liminal period where copyright is sometimes enforced, and sometimes not. Social pressure and business inertia causes some people to play by the rules. Risk taking, greed, and ignorance causes other people to not do so. Where this ends up is anyone's guess, but it isn't likely to stay this way for long. [That said, I'll reiterate my previous comment about record labels who bring hundred-million-dollar suits against their fans: fuck them.]

primatology 14y ago
BMW is a for-profit business. MIT is a non-profit educational institution. I'll agree that copyright in the digital era is a mess, but the line in this case is fairly clear. Yes, fair use (regarding parodies/satires) is convoluted, but the general rule makes intuitive sense to me: unless your parody is blatantly for-profit/self-advancement, you're covered.
- jamesmcn 14y ago
  So, what if BMW kicked the BMWCCA a few bills to make a "parody" video of their own?
  - rmc 14y ago
    It's up to judges to decide if they have broken the law and if it's an actual commercial. You can't just claim an advert is a parody and get away with it, it has to be an actual parody.
- gadders 14y ago
  A non-profit with $15b in total assets and endowments. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/institute-endowment-figures-0914.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/institute-endowment-figur...
  - chris_wot 14y ago
    And yet still a non-profit in actuality and intent.
    - gadders 14y ago
      Very true. But if a non-profit with $15b asked to license some of my IP for free I think I'd ask for some cash.
fossuser 14y ago
"We are in a liminal period where copyright is sometimes enforced, and sometimes not. Social pressure and business inertia causes some people to play by the rules. Risk taking, greed, and ignorance causes other people to not do so. Where this ends up is anyone's guess, but it isn't likely to stay this way for long." It's more nuanced than that - modern copyright is not doing what it was supposed to do (http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-intended http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-...).
shin_lao 14y ago
Parody is considered to be "fair use". Commercials aren't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody Actually copyright laws were pretty clear, we just had massive regression due to intense lobbying of greedy entities.
- tmh88j 14y ago
  >Parody is considered to be "fair use". Commercials aren't. How about when parodies generate money? Weird Al made millions doing that.
  - imgabe 14y ago
    Did Weird Al pay royalties to the songwriters for covering their songs? By law (in the US at least) you're allowed to cover any song as long as you pay the statutory royalties (or a lesser amount if you can negotiate that)
  - Shivetya 14y ago
    Many of the parodies I see on the net keep the original song or lyrics. Weird Al keeps most of the original musical sound but not the lyrics. So how do you parody a music video without changing the song? Does fair use of the music video via parody give you right to use the music behind it intact? (color me confused)
    - 1123581321 14y ago
      You can make money from a parody and make any parody you want. However, in the case of a music video, the video and the song are separate entities, so to avoid the license question the parody would have to change the music as well. I'm not sure where the line is, but for example, the "Opan Chomsky Style" line in the MIT video would certainly not be enough to make the song a parody. "Mitt Romney Style" would certainly be considered a fair use parody and since the video was also parody, the need to license was avoided. It would be interesting to know at which point a video soundtrack becomes separately copyrighted video. Does the process and order of creation matter or is a song a separate work by definition? Is it possible to merge video and music rights into one right?
vy8vWJlco 14y ago
"Devil's advocate: where do you draw the line?" Individual and not-for-profit uses are fair. http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing-for-personal-use-declared-legal-in-portugal-120927/ http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing-for-personal-use-declar...
MichaelSalib 14y ago
MIT didn't make a Gangnam style video at all. The Korean Students Association at MIT did and got a bunch of random students to help out. The KSA doesn't have any money; BMW does.
danielweber 14y ago
MIT pays a flat ASCAP license fee that covers all its students which probably provides them substantial legal cover for most use.

primatology 14y ago

BMW is a for-profit business. MIT is a non-profit educational institution. I'll agree that copyright in the digital era is a mess, but the line in this case is fairly clear. Yes, fair use (regarding parodies/satires) is convoluted, but the general rule makes intuitive sense to me: unless your parody is blatantly for-profit/self-advancement, you're covered.

jamesmcn 14y ago
So, what if BMW kicked the BMWCCA a few bills to make a "parody" video of their own?
- rmc 14y ago
  It's up to judges to decide if they have broken the law and if it's an actual commercial. You can't just claim an advert is a parody and get away with it, it has to be an actual parody.
gadders 14y ago
A non-profit with $15b in total assets and endowments. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/institute-endowment-figures-0914.html http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/institute-endowment-figur...
- chris_wot 14y ago
  And yet still a non-profit in actuality and intent.
  - gadders 14y ago
    Very true. But if a non-profit with $15b asked to license some of my IP for free I think I'd ask for some cash.

fossuser 14y ago

"We are in a liminal period where copyright is sometimes enforced, and sometimes not. Social pressure and business inertia causes some people to play by the rules. Risk taking, greed, and ignorance causes other people to not do so. Where this ends up is anyone's guess, but it isn't likely to stay this way for long." It's more nuanced than that - modern copyright is not doing what it was supposed to do (http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-intended http://zacharyalberico.com/post/16427595132/no-infringement-...).

shin_lao 14y ago

Parody is considered to be "fair use". Commercials aren't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_and_parody Actually copyright laws were pretty clear, we just had massive regression due to intense lobbying of greedy entities.

tmh88j 14y ago
>Parody is considered to be "fair use". Commercials aren't. How about when parodies generate money? Weird Al made millions doing that.
- imgabe 14y ago
  Did Weird Al pay royalties to the songwriters for covering their songs? By law (in the US at least) you're allowed to cover any song as long as you pay the statutory royalties (or a lesser amount if you can negotiate that)
- Shivetya 14y ago
  Many of the parodies I see on the net keep the original song or lyrics. Weird Al keeps most of the original musical sound but not the lyrics. So how do you parody a music video without changing the song? Does fair use of the music video via parody give you right to use the music behind it intact? (color me confused)
  - 1123581321 14y ago
    You can make money from a parody and make any parody you want. However, in the case of a music video, the video and the song are separate entities, so to avoid the license question the parody would have to change the music as well. I'm not sure where the line is, but for example, the "Opan Chomsky Style" line in the MIT video would certainly not be enough to make the song a parody. "Mitt Romney Style" would certainly be considered a fair use parody and since the video was also parody, the need to license was avoided. It would be interesting to know at which point a video soundtrack becomes separately copyrighted video. Does the process and order of creation matter or is a song a separate work by definition? Is it possible to merge video and music rights into one right?

vy8vWJlco 14y ago

"Devil's advocate: where do you draw the line?" Individual and not-for-profit uses are fair. http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing-for-personal-use-declared-legal-in-portugal-120927/ http://torrentfreak.com/file-sharing-for-personal-use-declar...

MichaelSalib 14y ago

MIT didn't make a Gangnam style video at all. The Korean Students Association at MIT did and got a bunch of random students to help out. The KSA doesn't have any money; BMW does.

danielweber 14y ago

MIT pays a flat ASCAP license fee that covers all its students which probably provides them substantial legal cover for most use.