VegettoEX wrote:There is SO. MUCH. misunderstanding about SO. MUCH. STUFF. in this thread. I'm not a lawyer, and I can't give legal advice... but... oh my god. You guys. Seriously. Wow. I can't. Someone please send help. And beer.
DrakenballP wrote:To test this out myself, I grabbed a Creative Commons episode 94 Preview for Dragon Ball Super
I hate to be so blunt, but
what does this even mean...? [Unless I'm missing something huge] There is absolutely no official release of a preview for the
Dragon Ball Super television series that Toei has distributed under a Creative Commons license. And even then, there are varying degrees or classifications (and combinations thereof) you can use under Creative Commons (attribution / share-alike / no-derivatives / etc.). Just because something is "Creative Commons" doesn't inherently mean it's free to just repost somewhere EVEN WITH no edits and EVEN WITH complete attribution. Creative Commons is just ONE TYPE OF BANNER under which content owners can express and declare their ownership, intent, and wishes.
So let's start with: where did you get it from, and why do you think it has been distributed under this type of license?
OK, moving on to the concept of fair use itself.
There has been one recent case (that I'm aware of?) with a conclusion to the contrary, but in general and leading up to that point, the following statement has been accurate: fair use is not a right; it is a defense.
This doesn't mean you have any kind of right to use anything you want for whatever reason you want. It also doesn't mean that you have the right to use things for reasons you believe actually live up to the spirit of the fair use defense. It means that,
IF AND WHEN CHALLENGED IN COURT, "fair use" can be your defense. You can
argue that the case should be dropped because it lines up with a certain set of SUGGESTED GUIDELINES (read: NOT cold, hard "facts" and and laws) where all parties could agree that maybe it was retroactively OK to use that stuff in that way that one time.
These SUGGESTED GUIDELINES include things like the amount of the work in question that has been used, the nature of the transformative work (education, parody), etc.
Quite frankly, I have a hard time imagining TeamFourStar's
Abridged episodes would ever be held up as truly parodic in nature. It's a transformative work, and it's based in humor... but the extent of the work being used is already a massive pitfall to overcome, nevermind everything else going against it. And that's just THE FOOTAGE; think about all the incidental music, sound effects, and even lines of dialog pulled from various places verbatim that themselves don't contribute to it being a "parody".
DrakenballP wrote:Team Fourstar has full permission to use audio, and video from both the Japanese, and Western version of Dragon Ball.
There is NO WAY that TeamFourStar has the express permission of Toei to use what they use and do what they do. Recent shenanigans should validate this beyond the shadow of a doubt. TeamFourStar folks being buddy-buddy with certain FUNimation staff members and some of them becoming legitimate voice actors and getting cast in other shows in no way has any relevance to the legal legitimacy of what they produce on the side.
There also seems to be a total misunderstanding of YouTube's Content ID system and how that relates to actual copyright strikes/accusations. Large rights-holders are invited to join YouTube's Content ID program, which gives them the opportunity to upload their own works which allow "fingerprints" to be detected when SOMEONE ELSE uploads that company's/organization's/rights-holder's work without prior approval/permission. If the content owner is a part of this program, they can do all sorts of things, up through and including issuing DMCA notices, monetizing that work, blocking that work, etc. This stuff can be appealed by the allegedly-infringing party, but it should be known that nothing is actually LEGALLY BINDING at this point... up until you actually appeal the claim, in which case you are saying you are willing to go to court over it.
At this point, cycle back above to "fair use is not a right; it is a defense".
(Just because something GETS THROUGH THE SYSTEM and is allowed to remain doesn't somehow infer inherent legality, either. Like these mentions of complete movies with new narration and commentary. That could be that the rights-holder isn't enrolled with YouTube's Content ID system, they haven't gotten around to claiming it yet, they realize the benefits of allowing illegal content to remain due to the Streisand Effect when you go after your own fans, and so on and so forth.)
Man, there's so much more to get into... and I'd sorta be happy to answer and elaborate I guess...? But holy cow.