Toei deleting Dbz videos issue

[VegettoEX]

I always wondered about this. Shouldn't AMV and/or MAD's be just as illegal,in this case ? As far as I know, conventions all over the world hold official AMV contests ( Japan aswell? ) and I have yet to hear of any legal problems.

There have been. The entire trailer/parody category had to pulled after one screening... last year?... the year before?... at Otakon due to concerns from the lawyers.

The entirety of any downloads containing music from whatever label it is that has Evanescence and Creed (Wind-Up Records, I think?) were taken down off AnimeMusicVideos.org after a Cease & Desist was sent.

Most anime companies simply turn an official "blind eye" toward AMV contests (while personally enjoying the ever living Hell out of them on their own time), while conventions typically pay ASCAP fees in order to play the music.

[Michsi]

There have been. The entire trailer/parody category had to pulled after one screening... last year?... the year before?... at Otakon due to concerns from the lawyers.

Oh, well that makes me look at the issue in a whole new light. I thought there was a "turn a blind eye/what harm could they do" stance going on when it came to these things.

But was because of the footage or the music? Because I've seen this happen on youtube plenty of times. The music companies are far more strict with this.

[Bussani]

I always wondered about this. Shouldn't AMV and/or MAD's be just as illegal,in this case ?

Basically, yeah. Using music or video you don't own isn't exactly legal.

As far as I know, conventions all over the world hold official AMV contests ( Japan aswell? ) and I have yet to hear of any legal problems.

That's a very good question. I know that most conventions have licenses to screen certain things, which you need to even screen episodes to a public audience, but I'm not sure how this covers things like AMVs. Even if using video wasn't an issue, you'd think they'd get in trouble for the music itself, wouldn't you? My best assumption is that it only really becomes a problem when you distribute the work, and things like YouTube count as a distribution method. But maybe someone else has a better answer than I do.

[Castor Troy]

YouTube's refused to restore my channel for the 3rd time. Now it's gone for good.

This is for real, people.

[Adamant]

I dunno... It's not always clear cut. If TeamFourStar created their own animation from scratch, then that's one thing, but they didn't technically own the rights to rip the video and create something out of it. Even a TV show that parodies a movie has to pay for the rights if they use an actual clip from it.

I am no expert, but I believe that's because the law grants more leeway when you distribute something for free than when you make money off it. Parody or not, you're still using background footage they spent money to create, so it's only fair that they get to share your profit.

To use a random example, some of the early AVGN videos incorporated movie clips for flavor. This was okay when they were posted for free on the internet, but when he put them on DVDs and sold them for a profit, he had to go in and edit out all these clips, since he was no longer covered by any parody law to utilize this footage.

But was because of the footage or the music? Because I've seen this happen on youtube plenty of times. The music companies are far more strict with this.

Well, obviously they have to be. No matter how many unrelated mute cartoon clips you play in the background, you're still posting a song in its entirety, which means people can get it for free when they're trying to sell it. An animation company, though, isn't going to lose any sales on you showing 500 2-second clips of a 20-hour TV series in rapid succession.

[Bussani]

I am no expert, but I believe that's because the law grants more leeway when you distribute something for free than when you make money off it. Parody or not, you're still using background footage they spent money to create, so it's only fair that they get to share your profit.

To use a random example, some of the early AVGN videos incorporated movie clips for flavor. This was okay when they were posted for free on the internet, but when he put them on DVDs and sold them for a profit, he had to go in and edit out all these clips, since he was no longer covered by any parody law to utilize this footage.

Funny, I was going to use that exact AVGN example as well! Anyway, that sounds about right to me; even James Rolfe doesn't technically have the right to use some of that footage in his videos, but most companies just wouldn't care unless he put it on his DVDs and sold it that way. Toei just seems to be one of those companies that throws their weight around just because they can. Technically they're probably within their rights to do so, but it's still completely unnecessary in some cases, and I have no idea what a court would say. I doubt many people are confident enough to try, you know?