5 ms·

Sued to oblivion by NBC in 3.. 2.. 1..

by anon4 12y ago

kissickas 12y ago
Warner Brothers owns the rights. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news/seinfeld-is-laughing-all-the-way-to-the-bank-tv-show-generates-31bn-in-repeat-fees-since-final-episode-8558519.html http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news/...
brador 12y ago
It might come under fair use: "Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"
- jasonwocky 12y ago
  It might come under fair use, but can this site afford to make that case? It does seem like an awful lot of one show to be using. They'd probably be better off if they pulled this mix of concepts from multiple sources. There's really no educational reason this site needs to be Seinfeld only. It seems like they're trading off the original content perhaps a little more than is fair.
  - glesica 12y ago
    We had planned for a mixed-content site, but never got around to it. My collaborators have used content from a number of shows in the classroom.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago
  I think it's worth highlighting that educational non-profit use - as any textbook production company will surely tell you - is not sufficient in itself to make something fair use. Educational use and/or non-profit use is part of the consideration.
glesica 12y ago
Actually, we've been up for something like five years at this point. No lawsuits. Our contention is that it is fair use (clearly educational, in my mind). knocks on wood
- Cushman 12y ago
  To preface this: I think the site is neat, and you're not going to be sued, and you're on good ethical footing. But: Your specific fair use claim doesn't seem particularly compelling. First, there's no plausible risk of trademark confusion, so we're only looking at copyright infringement. The list of Seinfeld episodes, and the facts about the plot of each one, are non-copyrightable, so AFAICT all we're talking about is a single 2-5 minute video clip per episode. The clips are a very small part of the overall episode, and they're narrowly edited to provide only enough context to demonstrate the point, which speaks to fair use. The fact that there's an educational, noncommercial purpose also helps. On the other hand, it's a swath of material cut from across the entirety of the show, with zero other sources, which is pretty far-ranging and speaks against fair use. If you imagine cutting the clips together into a YouTube video, and distributing that, you would have an extremely tenuous case. You'd be looking for some reason the use was necessary, not just convenient. So there's actually a lot riding on that educational purpose, and unfortunately that seems like the weakest part of the argument. Here's the rub: The site isn't educating people about Seinfeld. It's about economics. While the clips make for compelling examples, no one could reasonably claim they're the only or best ways to make those points. In other words, it doesn't seem like there's any reason you need to use material from Seinfeld instead of almost any other piece of popular culture. That runs a big ol' hole through the educational purpose argument; fair use isn't structured to let you copy whatever you want to, and simply being a teacher doesn't give us license to infringe at will, alas. (Educational institutions have a substantially more circumspect understanding of fair use[0] than Reddit does, and for good reason.) Keep in mind the educational exemption applies much more strongly to private performances than reproduction and distribution. I'd guess a university-level, semester-long course titled "The Economics of Seinfeld" where students watch a clip every class day would have a rock solid fair use case. But if the professor starts handing out DVDs, that starts to look like a place where the rights holder would want to draw a line in the sand. Anyway, again, for my part I see no moral issue, and I didn't really intend to belabor the point this much, just reasoning through the logic of fair use. I assume you haven't been sued for more blasé reasons than your use being legally defensible, to wit the Web double whammy: 1) Your infinitesimal damages are far below the cost of even sending a C&D letter, and 2) Suing any fan site, let alone one for a cult classic that's still showing reruns after fifteen years off the air, is clinically insane. [0] eg. http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/fair-use/ http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/fair-use/

Sued to oblivion by NBC in 3.. 2.. 1..

by anon4 12y ago

Sued to oblivion by NBC in 3.. 2.. 1..

Warner Brothers owns the rights. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news/seinfeld-is-laughing-all-the-way-to-the-bank-tv-show-generates-31bn-in-repeat-fees-since-final-episode-8558519.html http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/news/...

brador 12y ago

It might come under fair use: "Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"

jasonwocky 12y ago
It might come under fair use, but can this site afford to make that case? It does seem like an awful lot of one show to be using. They'd probably be better off if they pulled this mix of concepts from multiple sources. There's really no educational reason this site needs to be Seinfeld only. It seems like they're trading off the original content perhaps a little more than is fair.
- glesica 12y ago
  We had planned for a mixed-content site, but never got around to it. My collaborators have used content from a number of shows in the classroom.
pbhjpbhj 12y ago
I think it's worth highlighting that educational non-profit use - as any textbook production company will surely tell you - is not sufficient in itself to make something fair use. Educational use and/or non-profit use is part of the consideration.

glesica 12y ago

Actually, we've been up for something like five years at this point. No lawsuits. Our contention is that it is fair use (clearly educational, in my mind). knocks on wood

Cushman 12y ago
To preface this: I think the site is neat, and you're not going to be sued, and you're on good ethical footing. But: Your specific fair use claim doesn't seem particularly compelling. First, there's no plausible risk of trademark confusion, so we're only looking at copyright infringement. The list of Seinfeld episodes, and the facts about the plot of each one, are non-copyrightable, so AFAICT all we're talking about is a single 2-5 minute video clip per episode. The clips are a very small part of the overall episode, and they're narrowly edited to provide only enough context to demonstrate the point, which speaks to fair use. The fact that there's an educational, noncommercial purpose also helps. On the other hand, it's a swath of material cut from across the entirety of the show, with zero other sources, which is pretty far-ranging and speaks against fair use. If you imagine cutting the clips together into a YouTube video, and distributing that, you would have an extremely tenuous case. You'd be looking for some reason the use was necessary, not just convenient. So there's actually a lot riding on that educational purpose, and unfortunately that seems like the weakest part of the argument. Here's the rub: The site isn't educating people about Seinfeld. It's about economics. While the clips make for compelling examples, no one could reasonably claim they're the only or best ways to make those points. In other words, it doesn't seem like there's any reason you need to use material from Seinfeld instead of almost any other piece of popular culture. That runs a big ol' hole through the educational purpose argument; fair use isn't structured to let you copy whatever you want to, and simply being a teacher doesn't give us license to infringe at will, alas. (Educational institutions have a substantially more circumspect understanding of fair use[0] than Reddit does, and for good reason.) Keep in mind the educational exemption applies much more strongly to private performances than reproduction and distribution. I'd guess a university-level, semester-long course titled "The Economics of Seinfeld" where students watch a clip every class day would have a rock solid fair use case. But if the professor starts handing out DVDs, that starts to look like a place where the rights holder would want to draw a line in the sand. Anyway, again, for my part I see no moral issue, and I didn't really intend to belabor the point this much, just reasoning through the logic of fair use. I assume you haven't been sued for more blasé reasons than your use being legally defensible, to wit the Web double whammy: 1) Your infinitesimal damages are far below the cost of even sending a C&D letter, and 2) Suing any fan site, let alone one for a cult classic that's still showing reruns after fifteen years off the air, is clinically insane. [0] eg. http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/fair-use/ http://copyright.columbia.edu/copyright/fair-use/