dva_raza wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 8:05 pm
Skar wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 7:06 pm
I could wrong but I think those definitions of parody refer to something like Airplane or Scary Movie that recreate or reference scenes from other works to parody them but not reusing existing footage. There are some parodies like Kung Pow and Kung Faux that voice-over old martial arts movies but I assume they had to obtain a license.
That's good point I'll look into that
Getting back to you on this, I checked, and I see that these movies, at least the first one for sure, had the director of the original colaborate with the guy who made the parody (so obviously they had permission).
This means that no, those are not examples of the kind of parody that those articles about fair use are talking about, because “fair use” is a defense for someone who
doesn’t have the permission, (that’s basically the whole point of it).
They are though a good example of a parody that is basically a remix done with the original footage.
Which brings me to the point that was being argued with others, that I also wanted to clarify, about whether a parody (in relation to fair use) could use the
original material of the work that's being mocked, or only the
idea of it in order to be considered for the fair use defense, and I found clear examples in which original clips were used for parodies:
One is a parody very similar in style to Abridged:
The G.I. Joe PSAs. It’s basically a remix and redub of the original material made by this guy named Eric Fensler. In 2004 Hasbro issued him a cease and desist letter claiming that his videos violated copyright. He complied and removed the videos from his site but by then the videos had gone viral on the internet even if this was pre-Youtube. The Hasbro lawyers ended up backing down and it's suggested in the article I took this from that it was probably because "their case was weak based on grounds of the protection of parodies under the First Amendment". So that guy has had the videos on this site to this day.
And this other example:
"A pro-life video organization created two antiabortion videos by borrowing video clips from a pro-choice video and juxtaposing them with actual abortion footage. Important factors: The court characterized the pro-life videos as parodies despite the fact they did not meet the classic definition of a parody—something that humorously mimics or ridicules another’s work. In a unique holding, the court held that a parody need not be humorous, but may merely comment on, or criticize the original."
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/cases/
So considering those, and also the fact that there’s no indication anywhere that the term “material” mentioned in the context of the “4 factors to consider for fair use”, is referred to the tangible material
ONLY when speaking about a transformative educational work like Mark's, but not when talking about a parody, it think it can be assumed that the original material, whether it’s a small portion or an extensive one, is allowed to use for a parody. So in conclusion of the question raised by jjgp1112 and Masenko, the Funimation version done “for the Saban” whatever that is, is not a parody because it’s not mocking the original, it’s just a different version/edit of a dub. While Abridged is a parody based on the current definition of what parody is: "imitates in exaggerated, comedic fashion, often serving as a criticism or commentary on the original work or the artist", basically a mockery of the original, which doesn't say anywhere that has to be either analytical nor that it has to restrain from using the original material to be considered a parody.
But, again, if actually taken to court, Team Four Star would have an almost zero chance of winning when first 3 factors lean almost entirely against them, and most of all, when they wouldn’t be having that battle in America but in Japan where there is no “fair use”.
PerhapsTheOtherOne wrote: ↑Thu Feb 03, 2022 11:01 am
Looking at the exact details, Sho Pro is very heavily abusing legal loopholes to undermine someone by making court sues for videos individually and sending each individual notice to YT to bypass their copyright system.
Maybe I missed something in this particular case, but I’m not sure I understand why or how is this them abusing loopholes?
I'm saying it beacuse it doesn’t seem really different from what would’ve either way been the next option by Youtube’s own process in this situation. Which is (at least 3 years ago I know for a fact that that’s how it worked):
After a claim is apealed by the youtuber I think twice or 3 times, the only next option for the copyright owner given by Youtube, is to take the youtuber to court, (or do nothing), the latter being the outcome that happened with a friend who got a few copyright claims (although nothing to do with Japan), but all of which he appealed, and in his case nothing happened, the claims were just withdrawn and the videos got monetized again.
Yes, clearly this Shopro thing is pushing for the lawsuit, but my point is it doesnt seem like they are doing a “dirty tactic” but just (somehow) skipping to what would’ve been offered to them by youtube either way..
PerhapsTheOtherOne wrote: ↑Sat Feb 05, 2022 8:58 am
really hope YT will give geoblocking to all of its content creators
It would be ideal, but this Suede guy said, and I think he has a point, that that could also lead to piracy, and that makes this a problematic idea, maybe that’s the reason why Youtube haven’t used that policy (which as Mark said, is not new) in the context of copyright issues before this exception with him.
I think a solution would have been for Youtube to try to make a sort of deal with these anime companies similar to the one they made with Warner Music years ago, which allows all of those people doing covers of songs being able to upoad them legally while revenue is shared and everybody wins. But considering Youtube has been sued constantly over the years for copyright infringement over what their users upload, them not “standing up” to these guys right now is understandable, although if this makes enough noise maybe something can happen?
But for how things stand now, I think the best is for anime youtubers who have relied on using clips for their videos, should simply come to terms with the idea of making their videos in a different way, at least for now, because as unnecessary and petty it is for these companies to do this, it’s technically their right.
I wouldn’t worry about this I’m more curious if what Mark said about Toei contacting him for work is true or not? Now that’s something I wish he would address
