5 ms·

I'm more surprised there's a group of people who thought it wasn't illegal. I don't see what the big deal is, either. If Paramount wanted it distributed that

I'm more surprised there's a group of people who thought it wasn't illegal. I don't see what the big deal is, either. If Paramount wanted it distributed that way, they'd do it themselves. Anybody else who wants to distribute a movie frame by frame on Twitter, why not make your own movie for it?

omershapira 13y ago
This being fair use or not is debatable (and hence the legality, which you find shockingly straightforward). The big deal is that 'culture' and 'fandom' are wired in mysterious and awkward ways to 'property'. If it was a consensus between distribution companies that audiences wait for a fandom code of conduct, we wouldn't have fans of anything, and more devastatingly to the tech bubble, we wouldn't have Tumblr.
- jlarocco 13y ago
  IMO there's not much debate about it. Seeing how it's been interpreted in the past, it seems obvious (to me) that this wouldn't be fair use.
- chrismcb 13y ago
  I don't understand why some people thing that it might be fair use. It doesn't even seem close to being debatable. Fair use revolves around commentary (and criticism) and parody. While fair use TENDS to be in small doses, it doesn't have to be. But I don't see how this falls under either commentary or parody. The guy tweeted the ENTIRE film. The fact that it doesn't compete with a dvd or itunes is not relevant.
  - omershapira 13y ago
    Tweeting the entire film (24f * 60s * 110m) every half hour for a month (2f * 24h * 30d) would leave the film at the first minute of credits. Obviously that wasn't what was going on. Now, if you will, try to define 'commentary' and 'parody' in ways that are culturally relevant to the audience. That's harder to manipulate than numbers. The definition of fair use relies heavily on the context. Is this any different from gifs on tumblr?
    - TillE 13y ago
      > Is this any different from gifs on tumblr? Who says Tumblr gifs are legal fair use? Copyright infringement may be tolerated or overlooked, but that doesn't make it not infringement. For comparison, the Premier League has recently been going after goal highlight GIFs on certain sites, which is unfortunate, but it seems entirely within their rights. http://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1ymeff/gfycat_removing_gifs_due_to_takedown_notices_from/ http://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1ymeff/gfycat_removi...
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - gpvos 13y ago
      Not much, I think. Which means it's probably illegal too.
  - gnicholas 13y ago
    Fair use doesn't revolve around commentary/criticism/parody. That's just one factor. Not that the other factors are super favorable to @55uhz, but at least one of them (effect on market for original copyrighted work) cuts in their favor. Nobody's going to watch the movie in super (duper) slow-mo instead of buying/renting/streaming it. If anything, it's helping the market for Top Gun. The other factors are less favorable, and there's of course the question of how the user got the frames in the first place—if he ripped a DVD he might have violated the DMCA, which has no fair use exception.
  - Natsu 13y ago
    Judges use the four factor test. But all four factors get weight, not just one. See: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ The factor you claim is not relevant is factor #4 on that list. This work is also transformative, as it's a new kind of work rather than a verbatim copy, though the extent to which it is transformative might be debatable. This is considered one of the most important factors, as well. You are correct that copying the entire work weighs heavily against (but, importantly, does not preclude) a finding of fair use, but it's not clear that it actually copies the entire movie. After all, it may cover the entire plot, but it simply does not cover the entire content. You cannot simply stitch the frames together and get the original, you'd get a slide show instead of a movie. That aside, I'm not convinced that this would be a slam dunk for either side in court.
sliverstorm 13y ago
I'm more surprised there's a group of people who thought it wasn't illegal. I think it's one of the following: 1) there's a group of people who wants it to be legal, really bad. So they fool themselves. 2) there's a group of people who knows it is illegal, but does it anyway. So they fool themselves.
- jwarkentin 13y ago
  3) There's a group of people who aren't lawyers, don't give a crap and just want to enjoy life without arguing over the technicalities and legalities of everything, especially things that can't provably affect the profits of Paramount. They likely didn't give the legality much consideration.
  - JetSpiegel 13y ago
    This is most of the world population. 99.999999%+
  - anon4 13y ago
    3) There's a group of people who aren't lawyers, don't give a crap and just want to enjoy life without arguing over the technicalities and legalities of everything, especially things that can't provably affect the profits of Paramount. They likely didn't give the legality much consideration. QFT. (no copyright intended)
mkingston 13y ago
"If Paramount wanted it distributed that way, they'd do it themselves." Probably not. This is the first time I've heard of a movie being tweeted like this. I think from a perspective of pure self-interest they probably would've been better to embrace it (retweeted?).
onetwofiveten 13y ago
The big deal is that this goes against the original intention of copyright law. Copyright law is only supposed to provide incentives to create works of art. The restriction on personal freedoms is supposed to be outweighed by the cultural (and economic) benefits this has for society. When copyright is used to restrict non-competing derivative works, this is not the case. I think many feel there is an implicit social contract between content creators and the public. Art borrows from and adds to culture. Protecting artists is a good idea, but when you use those protections to stifle people messing around with your art, then I think that's going too far. People messing around with art is an important part of how culture progresses, and without the cultural context of the time Top Gun would never have existed.

omershapira 13y ago

This being fair use or not is debatable (and hence the legality, which you find shockingly straightforward). The big deal is that 'culture' and 'fandom' are wired in mysterious and awkward ways to 'property'. If it was a consensus between distribution companies that audiences wait for a fandom code of conduct, we wouldn't have fans of anything, and more devastatingly to the tech bubble, we wouldn't have Tumblr.

jlarocco 13y ago
IMO there's not much debate about it. Seeing how it's been interpreted in the past, it seems obvious (to me) that this wouldn't be fair use.
chrismcb 13y ago
I don't understand why some people thing that it might be fair use. It doesn't even seem close to being debatable. Fair use revolves around commentary (and criticism) and parody. While fair use TENDS to be in small doses, it doesn't have to be. But I don't see how this falls under either commentary or parody. The guy tweeted the ENTIRE film. The fact that it doesn't compete with a dvd or itunes is not relevant.
- omershapira 13y ago
  Tweeting the entire film (24f * 60s * 110m) every half hour for a month (2f * 24h * 30d) would leave the film at the first minute of credits. Obviously that wasn't what was going on. Now, if you will, try to define 'commentary' and 'parody' in ways that are culturally relevant to the audience. That's harder to manipulate than numbers. The definition of fair use relies heavily on the context. Is this any different from gifs on tumblr?
  - TillE 13y ago
    > Is this any different from gifs on tumblr? Who says Tumblr gifs are legal fair use? Copyright infringement may be tolerated or overlooked, but that doesn't make it not infringement. For comparison, the Premier League has recently been going after goal highlight GIFs on certain sites, which is unfortunate, but it seems entirely within their rights. http://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1ymeff/gfycat_removing_gifs_due_to_takedown_notices_from/ http://www.reddit.com/r/soccer/comments/1ymeff/gfycat_removi...
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - gpvos 13y ago
    Not much, I think. Which means it's probably illegal too.
- gnicholas 13y ago
  Fair use doesn't revolve around commentary/criticism/parody. That's just one factor. Not that the other factors are super favorable to @55uhz, but at least one of them (effect on market for original copyrighted work) cuts in their favor. Nobody's going to watch the movie in super (duper) slow-mo instead of buying/renting/streaming it. If anything, it's helping the market for Top Gun. The other factors are less favorable, and there's of course the question of how the user got the frames in the first place—if he ripped a DVD he might have violated the DMCA, which has no fair use exception.
- Natsu 13y ago
  Judges use the four factor test. But all four factors get weight, not just one. See: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ The factor you claim is not relevant is factor #4 on that list. This work is also transformative, as it's a new kind of work rather than a verbatim copy, though the extent to which it is transformative might be debatable. This is considered one of the most important factors, as well. You are correct that copying the entire work weighs heavily against (but, importantly, does not preclude) a finding of fair use, but it's not clear that it actually copies the entire movie. After all, it may cover the entire plot, but it simply does not cover the entire content. You cannot simply stitch the frames together and get the original, you'd get a slide show instead of a movie. That aside, I'm not convinced that this would be a slam dunk for either side in court.

sliverstorm 13y ago

I'm more surprised there's a group of people who thought it wasn't illegal. I think it's one of the following: 1) there's a group of people who wants it to be legal, really bad. So they fool themselves. 2) there's a group of people who knows it is illegal, but does it anyway. So they fool themselves.

jwarkentin 13y ago
3) There's a group of people who aren't lawyers, don't give a crap and just want to enjoy life without arguing over the technicalities and legalities of everything, especially things that can't provably affect the profits of Paramount. They likely didn't give the legality much consideration.
- JetSpiegel 13y ago
  This is most of the world population. 99.999999%+
- anon4 13y ago
  3) There's a group of people who aren't lawyers, don't give a crap and just want to enjoy life without arguing over the technicalities and legalities of everything, especially things that can't provably affect the profits of Paramount. They likely didn't give the legality much consideration. QFT. (no copyright intended)

mkingston 13y ago

"If Paramount wanted it distributed that way, they'd do it themselves." Probably not. This is the first time I've heard of a movie being tweeted like this. I think from a perspective of pure self-interest they probably would've been better to embrace it (retweeted?).

onetwofiveten 13y ago

The big deal is that this goes against the original intention of copyright law. Copyright law is only supposed to provide incentives to create works of art. The restriction on personal freedoms is supposed to be outweighed by the cultural (and economic) benefits this has for society. When copyright is used to restrict non-competing derivative works, this is not the case. I think many feel there is an implicit social contract between content creators and the public. Art borrows from and adds to culture. Protecting artists is a good idea, but when you use those protections to stifle people messing around with your art, then I think that's going too far. People messing around with art is an important part of how culture progresses, and without the cultural context of the time Top Gun would never have existed.