×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

234 comments

Corel? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19207427)

Also here is a corel cache version as well as a link to the original page.
Interesting, I wasn't aware that Corel was offering a caching service. Unless he was actually referring to the "coral cache" we all know and love...

Description, please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19207435)

Anyone care to describe/transcribe this for those of us who can't render video?

Re:Description, please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19207591)

The video is hundreds of pieces of disney films, spliced together, using very very short clips from each peice at a time to make a story, the story is about the nature of copyright (which the video probably ingringes).

Re:Description, please! (5, Informative)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207613)

It's a short video (about 5 min) composed almost entirely of super-short clips from Disney films. Each clip typically has one or just a few words spoken by a Disney cartoon character, but the words when strung together describe copyright law, and makes a reasonable argument that it should have shorter, rather than longer duration. It also describes fair use. The film starts out with a potential violation, with Disney's film opening (the castle, and tune that goes with it). This was shown as something that can be copyrighted, and clearly does not diminish it's value, so they may be able to argue that it was fair use. I suspect this was done on purpose to pose a challenge to Disney. It ends with full disclosure of the authors, and lists each segment that was borrowed under "fair use". The film says that the original copyright law allowed for only 17 years of protection, but that today the duration is your lifetime plus 70 years for an individual, and over 100 years for a corporation. Personally, I think your works should become public domain after you die, and that corporations should have similar time-periods, let's say about 50 years.

Personally, I hope the authors achieve some success in swaying public opinion in favor of reasonable restrictions on copyright length.

Re:Description, please! (2, Interesting)

Dr_Mic (975409) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207759)

50 years? BLEH!
With the acceleration of culture and technology, shouldn't the modern duration of copyright (and other intellectual property rights) be shorter than the original 17 years, rather than longer? The video makes the excellent point that all new works borrow from existing materials (culture), and so should revert to the culture (public domain) after the owners and/or creators have had reasonable opportunity to profit from their works.

Re:Description, please! (1)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208319)

I think 17 years is plenty long enough for a patent on technology. However, I think an artist should be able to profit on all their work for longer. Artists don't all keep creating great art as they get old. I think a great artist who devoted his life to his work should continue to profit during retirement... most artists I know barely get by while in their prime, so they have no savings by the time they reach retirement.

Re:Description, please! (2, Insightful)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208453)

Curiously, could you provide an example of a "modern great artist," and a great work he/she/they have created? I mean, we certainly aren't in the age of Leonardo da Vinci. What construes a "great" work today? Thinking of movies and music, most of those make the most money they ever will by far in their first year. I mean, how much money is the average movie going to make after 10 years?

Me, I think of Looney Toons. Most of those cartoons were made in the 30's, the 40's, the 50's, etc. It's been over half a century, and the characters and acts have been ingrained into our culture. Look at Star Wars as well. It's been, what, 30 years since episode IV came out? Star Wars jokes and parodies and tributes are all over mass culture. Should George Lucas still have a firm grip on those works, just to alter them and repackage them to sell them over again?

I don't know. Stuff like that just does not sit well with me. I mean, if Lucas WANTS to repackage it and sell it, sure, let him. But shouldn't the original be available to the public? Of course, the means of making it available are rather difficult to think of.

Re:Description, please! (1)

smilindog2000 (907665) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208667)

I tend to think more of local artists who didn't make millions, photographers, writers, musicians and such. Many artists have such passion for their art that they live essentially in poverty to pursue their art. I think if they spend their productive years making the stuff, they should benefit during retirement.

Re:Description, please! (3, Interesting)

BakaHoushi (786009) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208725)

Hmmm. Well, perhaps then, the length of copyright should be inversely proportional to the income it makes? (Like a tax bracket)

Re:Description, please! (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208793)

Curiously, could you provide an example of a "modern great artist," and a great work he/she/they have created?


Roger Waters

Great works:

  - Dark Side of the Moon - a timeless concept anyone can relate to. One of the biggest money-making albums even today, over 30 years after its debut, and it KEEPS popping up in tbe billboard 200 after all this time. 741 consecutive weeks in the top 200 after its debut, and has reappeared many times, for a total of over 1,500 weeks. Not made in Waters' first year.

  - The Wall - a concept album dealing with psychosis, social engineering, fascism, emotional barriers, and the futility of war. Again, not made in Waters' first year.

  - the final cut - a concept album confronting the futility of war, relationship issues. Again, not made in Waters' first year, and while sales were considered disappointing for a Pink Floyd album (what, it went "only" double platinum? Yes, what a miserable failure that was.)

  - Ca Ira - a FANTASTIC operatic composition about the french revolution. Not Waters' typical style but it certainly ranks up there with great classical works. Waters is a fantastic composer and while I haven't bought the album because I am loathe to fork money over to Sony, I've listened to the stream from the web site. Fantastic work. I'll eventually give in and buy it, but will check for used copies first. No, I have not downloaded it, FYI, aside from the streams from the official site.

Re:Description, please! (4, Informative)

OECD (639690) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208129)

The film starts out with a potential violation, with Disney's film opening (the castle, and tune that goes with it).

Disney's logo is shown, while additional text above it says, essentially, "this is not endorsed or created by..." No potential confusion there, so the trademark (not copyright) is used appropriately.

Oh, and the original copyright term was fourteen years, not seventeen. Personally, I can't comprehend why the digital age needs longer copyrights than the founders thought appropriate in the age of crude printing presses. It should be more like seven, these days.

Re:Description, please! (2, Insightful)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207747)

It's annoying to watch. Rather than redub the animation, or frame it in a dialogue, he uses extremely short clips of various Disney cartoons to recite his script by using one clip per word (generally), and since the tones of voice, speed at which they're talking, etc. all vary, it sounds jarring as hell. There's a lot of repetition, too. I didn't even get to the middle of it.

Re:Description, please! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19208145)

..and ADD claims another victim.

Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (0, Flamebait)

g051051 (71145) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207447)

This little exercise seems to violate the intent of Fair Use pretty much in every way. From the illegal use of the Disney logo (with animation and music) to the repeated and unnecessary use of actual Disney dialog and video, it seems that the creator missed the point entirely.

Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207479)

He also fails to acknowledge trademarks (i.e., the Disney logo) as a separate issue from "copyright." There is no "fair use" of trademarks like there is with copyright.

Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19207571)

There's no fair use of trademarks in the sense of leading people to endorse something, but you sure as hell can use them in a criticism. And indeed, that's a damning and accurtate criticism of copyright, which Disney led the charge in twisting. Ironically that success has lead to their stagnation and need to aquire other companies rather than produce there own content internally.

Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (5, Informative)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207705)

Actually there is a fair use doctrine in trademark law, and it's called fair use, but it's quite different from the fair use doctrine of copyright law, which can lead to some confusion if you end up talking about both. Usually you end up having to qualify which one you mean.

I found the quick cuts too jarring to allow me to watch more than a minute of it, but as for the use of the logo in the beginning, he has a decent position. Nominative use is allowed -- how can he say he's not affiliated with Disney if he can't say the name 'Disney' in the disclaimer? But the use of the entire animated logo and music would need to fall under the overall parody, which had better be non-commercial in nature, as this one appears to be. His position isn't airtight; he'd've done better to just simply say that he wasn't affiliated with Disney, rather than to use the logo animation, but he has a decent argument in his favor.

Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (1)

g051051 (71145) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207991)

He could refer to Disney and use the Disney name without any problem, but the wholesale use of the logo, animation, sound is over the line for fair use.

Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (3, Informative)

CyberLord Seven (525173) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208421)

The entire piece, including the Disney logo, is satirical and therefore protected. The key element is that the entire piece is satirical. Don't try to pull one section from the rest and you will clearly see that the authors are using everything to point out how ridiculous the laws on copyright have become.

Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (1)

physicsnick (1031656) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208553)

Of course he'd have legally done better to just say that, but then it wouldn't be as effective. The whole point is that companies fight against fair use, and will intimidate you into giving up your right to fair use (by, say, not using the whole logo) to avoid getting a lawsuit that will bankrupt you even if you're right.

You should have watched the whole thing; it was much more than a mere explanation of copyright, as the summary claims.

Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19207511)

Naturally a random slashdotter knows more about copyright than the people at Stanford's law center...

Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19207703)

Of course. At slashdot, we know more about just about anything than those klutzes outside our IT departments. That's also why we don't even have to read the articles. We already know this stuff. And being at slashdot, you should know it too, instead of making sarcastic remarks.

Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (4, Funny)

QuickFox (311231) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207755)

Naturally a random slashdotter knows more about copyright than the people at Stanford's law center...
Of course he does. You must be new here.

Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208483)

To be fair- the average slashdotter has probably been arguing copyright law here (and lawyers are in the mix) for several years.

So they at least more aware than the average populace.

Of course some are complete loons or in denial of the actual law.

Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19207581)

Jesus. You're dense. You didn't bother to watch it or you would have understood why they used Disney. They texplain it all at the end. It certainly IS fair use.

Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (3, Insightful)

Inverted Intellect (950622) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207583)

IANAL, but as stated in the video, fair use isn't a right, it's a legally defensible position, which the video itself is supposed to occupy. The use of short segments of copyrighted material for purposes of commentary and comedy is categorized as fair use. I'm pretty sure the video is a comedic commentary, and it also only uses short segments.

Ummm... copyright is civil (2, Insightful)

Excelcia (906188) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207615)

Actually, if you want to get picky... if it were a copyright violation (which it isn't), then it would be a civil breach, not a criminal one.

And your post, which some might think* should be criminal, is really just indicative of a low watt bulb.

* This author does not disclose what he believes on this subject on the grounds that he would absolutely incriminate himself.

Re:Ummm... copyright is civil (3, Interesting)

Albanach (527650) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208437)

In the United Kingdom Copyright is both a civil and criminal offence. So if someone breaches your copyright, say alters your GPL program and redistributes without the modified source, you could complain to the police. Useful if you don't have the resources to fight a copyright battle yourself. Equally, if you breach copyright law in the UK you could go to jail.

Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (4, Insightful)

kebes (861706) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207773)

I have to disagree.

The use of the Disney logo doesn't violate trademark law because it was accompanied by a "this movie is not endorsed by:" line. The purpose of trademark law is not to prevent people from reproducing imagery, but rather to avoid consumer confusion. I don't think many consumers would be confused by a large disclaimer stating "this is not affiliated with Disney!" (anymore than they would think that my post is endorsed by Disney, simply because I use their name in my post).

Furthermore, the entire video is both a massive comedic parody, and a commentary on the current state of copyright. As the video points out, these are two things which are supposedly protected by fair use. You are allowed to use clips in order to criticize something and/or for satire.

Another bit of irony is that the author of the video threw in some clips from Aladdin, where the genie was performing satire. If you've ever watched Aladdin, you'll know how many jokes in that movie revolved around the genie making reference to all kinds of movies and actors. Many of the genie's lines are taken verbatim from other movies, for instance.

So, if Disney is protected by the satire/parody clause in copyright, why isn't this short, informative, humorous video? If a video like this is not protected by fair use (does it reduce the economic potential of Aladdin to show 8 clips, each 0.8 seconds long, from that movie?) then the law is ever more broken than I previously thought.

Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208187)

I love the "The public domain is a disgrace to the forces of evil" at 4:58

Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (2, Insightful)

Tribbin (565963) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207885)

"It seems that the creator missed the point entirely."

Or you missed the intentional joke of finding the edge of what the creator can/can't do.

Re:Amazing? Amazingly criminal... (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208095)

Satire is fair use.

Given Disney's stance on extending copyright indefinitely, it seems to me that was the author's intent.

As for use of the logo, there could be trademark issues, but satire is, of course, fair use for trademark as well.

On poking gorillas with sticks. (2, Insightful)

Mahjub Sa'aden (1100387) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208233)

The video, as far as I can tell, is like exploratory surgery.

Tangentially, actually watching it much like surgery, as well.

Oh Mickey you're so fine... (4, Funny)

packetmon (977047) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207455)

Mickey: Hi kids do you know what copyright is? Kids: Is that when you sued my dead grandmother Mickey? [zdnet.com] Mickey: That's right kids...

Re:Oh Mickey you're so fine... (3, Funny)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208375)

I preferred the Uncle Remus version:

Remus: Zip-a-dee-do-dah, Zip-a-dee-a. If you're watching this movie in the US, you've obtained it illegally. Plenty of lawyers comin' your way. Zip-a-dee-do-dah, Zip-a-dee-a.

ummm....fair use (-1, Flamebait)

tribecom (1005035) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207467)

Re: how long before someone gets sued Did you bother to even watch it before submitting? The whole point of the video was fair use, you moron.

Re:ummm....fair use (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207525)

That might be the point, but it doesn't mean it *is* fair use. It's an edge case that I wouldn't want to have to decide about. It might be fair use, but then again it might not. The google decision recently reported will be a trivial case compared to this one, if it ever gets contested.

Re:ummm....fair use (4, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207771)

What is it with all the name-calling on /. lately? We're sliding towards the Digg-level here... Please moderate your language people!

Re:ummm....fair use (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19207875)

Shut up, poopyhead.

Re:ummm....fair use (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207977)

And we all know that no corporation has ever sued anyone over something that's covered by fair use. Getting sued and winning the lawsuit are two different things.

Re:ummm....fair use (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19208391)

Fair Use is not a defense against getting sued. It's a defense you can use at the trial once you do get sued. Disney is pretty touchy about their copyrights, and are likely to sue either in a belief that fair use doesn't apply here, or just as a bludgeon against people who can't afford to defend themselves.

YouTube Link (1, Informative)

mgabrys_sf (951552) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207483)

Geez guys - even BoingBoing could find this one....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJn_jC4FNDo [youtube.com]

enjoy.

Re:YouTube Link (3, Funny)

madsheep (984404) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207509)

This URL you posted has an uncanny resemblance to the one posted in original posting.

Re:YouTube Link (3, Funny)

evilviper (135110) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207711)

This URL you posted has an uncanny resemblance to the one posted in original posting.

You forgot a few:

poster
postable
postface
posthaste
postdate
postdigestive
etc.

The more "post" and the less of any other words, the better. Please try to work more variations of "post" into your next... err... submission.

Re:YouTube Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19208043)

Thanks man, my first thought was for a youtube video, fuck Coral Cache. Fucking editors.

Didn't really think this through... (-1, Redundant)

john-da-luthrun (876866) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207485)

Hmm. Using copyright material without authorisation in order to explain... copyright law. O-kaaaay.

Still, it might just work provided you don't use material belonging to someone really litigious and with a highly, um, proactive approach towards protecting their "intellectual property".

What was that? Oh. You used Disney material. Ulp.

I'd flee the jurisdiction right now, save yourself time...

Re:Didn't really think this through... (0, Offtopic)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207541)

Maybe you should watch the video. Something the summary didn't say (but really should have) is that the video's creators exercised their fair use rights to create a video that explains copyright and fair use. But that would be too much effort for an "editor" like Taco...

Re:Didn't really think this through... (1)

john-da-luthrun (876866) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207605)

Maybe you should watch the video.

Maybe I should (dang internet filtering at the office). But my point was more: "I hope this person knows what they're letting themselves in for..."

Even if this does fit within "fair use" - I've no idea, I'm not an American, and UK copyright law is far more restrictive about this sort of thing - the creator had better be prepared for the possibility of a legal fight to establish that. That's all I was saying.

Re:Didn't really think this through... (2, Informative)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207635)

Well, considering this was released in conjunction with Stanford Law School, I'm betting they're very prepared to stand up to Disney should it come down to it.

I don't think they figured they needed to explain (1)

Excelcia (906188) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207649)

...something that was pretty much laurel-and-hardy-slap-in-the-face implied by the video.

Re:Didn't really think this through... (1)

master0ne (655374) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207933)

maby YOU should have watched the video... then you'd know its not fair use "right".... they exercised their fair use legaly defendable position.....

sorry... had to point that out....

Re:Didn't really think this through... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19208133)

...the video's creators exercised their fair use rights to create a video that is a farce about Disney and copyright and fair use.

There, fixed that for you.

May the Farce be with you.

Re:Didn't really think this through... (2, Informative)

Aoreias (721149) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207557)

Clearly you missed the entire point of the video, which was to explain and demonstrate fair use at the same time. There's no trademark infringment because it is *clearly* not associated with Disney (not only is there a message clearly disclaiming it, the message is up 5 seconds before the trademark even appears).

The video falls under fair use as it makes brief use of copyrighted works in an educational manner, and doesn't devalue any of the material that it uses in its clips.

I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't hoping for a DMCA takedown notice by Disney.

Re:Didn't really think this through... (1)

john-da-luthrun (876866) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207631)

As I've said in another reply, I'm well aware what the purpose of the video was. My point was more that the creator had better be ready for a legal fight to demonstrate that it is fair use. I can't see Disney shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Meh. It's fair use. What's the point setting our lawyers onto them?"

Very well thought through thinking... (4, Interesting)

Nymz (905908) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207595)

On the contrary, Disney is the perfect target. What other company has benefited so much by taking from the public domain, yet continuously refuses to release anything back.

Re:Very well thought through thinking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19207731)

That reminds me of a software company who borrowed an IP stack. . .

Re:Very well thought through thinking... (1)

darthflo (1095225) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208513)

Apple?
(I know, BSD/GPL isn't quite Public Domain, but sometimes to some it comes quite close.. ;))

You didn't think your post through (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207869)

Fair use allows for editorial or teaching use of segments of works - which is what this video is.

Furthermore it makes use of content from the company that you could argue has benefited the most of anyone from works in the public domain - Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, etc. etc. Is it any wonder the quality of Disney movies has declined since this source or original creativity to base stories on has dried up thanks to longer copyright terms?

Use of Disney works to give this lesson is genius, and makes a number of great points all at once. It's not like they would be sued anyway, it would just be taken off YouTube.

WTFV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19208173)

Watch the F[reaking\|ine\|air-use] video.

Oh wait, this is /.

Nevermind.

that was tedious (2, Informative)

gelfling (6534) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207551)

Even for the 65 seconds I could bear to watch it.

Re:that was tedious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19207799)

You seem to have a very short attention span. Maybe try Ritalin?

Re:that was tedious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19208641)

It's not about a short attention span, it's that the constant switching in voice, tone, tempo and visual is distracting and jarring.

Didn't like it. (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207553)

I expected something along the lines of "posting and you". Instead i got a bunch of video cuts that, even when they were brilliant, the words weren't clear enough. If he only had used subtitles...

Mirrordot (3, Informative)

asninn (1071320) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207587)

The coral cache link isn't working for me at least, but mirrordot seems to have caught it [mirrordot.org]. Just be sure to chop off the first 3635 bytes of HTML prepended to the file.

Video as a Test (4, Insightful)

madsheep (984404) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207593)

Well if you watch through the whole video you will see that they reference this video as basically being an experiment. If the creators of the video are understanding and interpreting everything they think they should be protected from the law. The only problem is that the law still allows someone to sue you even if they are wrong. Going to court and defending yourself isn't free, even if your attorney is...

Honestly, I would be quite interested in what Disney does on this one. This would be nice to track.

Ignore it... (2, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207819)

...that's what I would do anyway. Oh yes, it's funny. It's uhm.. hilarious. Look at that.. snippets from Disney productions used to explain the evils of copyright. Yeah. So what else is on?

Seriously, watch the thing.. What.. /is/ COPY.. rrrright? COPY COPY.. rrright? IT! /is/.. a.. rrright! by the COPY!.. rrright OOOwner... etc. Would you like your newspaper to be written in the style of a 'ransom note'? Sure, it'd be interesting for a day, it might even enter history as a landmark publication.. but you wouldn't want to read it again. And more likely than not, you're not going to remember what the thing read. I don't even remember what this video was trying to tell me, exactly.. just that it annoyed the crap out of me - in a bad way. Quite unlike commercials for tampons and such which are very annoying as well, but I sure remember that they now come in a silky smooth and curved lines-variant for ease insertion from Tampax.

So if Disney is smart.. they'll ignore it, and it'll go away faster than the SONY 'rootkit' outrage.

A much better video would have used snippets of the first Mickey Mouse adventure etc. with clear and concise narration, law references, case references, and so forth - it would hold attention much better.
imho anyway - perception is a personal thing after all

Re:Video as a Test (4, Insightful)

johnny cashed (590023) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207837)

If Disney is smart, they'll ignore it. They don't want to encourage public discourse on copyright. Sometimes any publicity is bad publicity.

Re:Video as a Test (1)

Compholio (770966) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207863)

The only problem is that the law still allows someone to sue you even if they are wrong.
The law allows someone to sue you even if you haven't broken any laws, and if they're convincing enough they can even win.

Re:Video as a Test (4, Insightful)

swillden (191260) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207883)

Honestly, I would be quite interested in what Disney does on this one. This would be nice to track.

Disney will do absolutely nothing. There's negative value to Disney in even issuing a DMCA takedown notice, much less suing the creator of this video.

If they were to sue or issue a takedown, the very best that could happen (from their perspective) is that the video would be taken down. There's virtually no chance of any kind of monetary judgement, and none at all that they could be awarded and collect an amount of money that Disney would actually care about.

The worst that could happen, on the other hand, is that the whole thing could garner huge amounts of publicity and get mainstream columnists and pundits talking about the issues, the concept of Fair Use, questions about appropriate copyright durations and the purpose of copyright, etc.

It's also possible that the court's ruling could establish some broad precedent, either strongly reaffirming and expanding Fair Use, or undermining and limiting it, but both scenarios are very, very unlikely. This video targets the exact center of Fair Use -- it's criticism and education, for non-profit purposes and its almost complete lack of entertainment value ensures that it's no threat to the commercial success of the films it uses. A court would have to completely gut Fair Use to rule that this video is infringing, and that's not going to happen. To expand and strengthen Fair Use, a court would have to not only rule that this video is non-infringing, it would have to voluntarily add sweeping statements defining Fair Use. Courts don't do that, they strive to keep their rulings as narrow and precise as possible.

No, Disney won't see any value in pursuing this to set a favorable precedent, won't get anything significant from attacking it and would risk significant negative publicity. They'll do nothing.

Bravo! (4, Insightful)

Excelcia (906188) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207737)

All I can say about this is... wow. What a piece of editing that was. Just the shear workforce-hours involved documenting the needed phrases within Disney works. The dripping irony of using Disney clips is too precious for words.

I'm not one to waste space with a "me too" post that is essentially just the noise of me clapping, but this video deserves a standing ovation.

Buzz "Copy" Lightyear (3, Funny)

Tachys (445363) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207783)

Seriously, is Buzz Lightyear the only character to ever say the word "copy" in any disney animated film?

Re:Buzz "Copy" Lightyear (2, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207857)

Knowing that Disney gets many of their ideas from the public domain and other sources, I'd say that it's verboten to use the word "copy" in a Disney film. ; )

Re:Buzz "Copy" Lightyear (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19208159)

Hi Tachys,

I'm Eric Faden the director of the film . . . and yes, Buzz provided the only clear enuciation of the word "copy" that we could find. The Monster's Inc. enuciation at the end of the film couldn't be isolated clearly enough. It was quite interesting to see what words Disney films avoided like the plague: "copy" "piracy" "artist" (very interesting) "creativity."

As an FYI, there will be a director's commentary on the MEF DVD release (in June) that talks about the ideas and challenges of putting the film together.

And thanks to everyone at Slashdot for the great comments . . .

best,
e

Worth the effort? (4, Insightful)

tcdk (173945) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207801)

A lot of hard work must have gone into this. But, well, the results are less than stellar. But in a ways it's more like a piece of bait for the legal department of Disney. It's not so much the message of the movie itself, but it's ability to force a reaction, that exactly the point of the message itself, that's interesting.

Viral marketing payed by the legal department of Disney, if you want. If it works. If Disney can't find a quiet way to kill it. On the otherhand, if they do not try to kill it, a small piece of fair use got got accepted, and will set a precedence. A win-win situation, as far as I see it.

Re:Worth the effort? (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208383)

But in a ways it's more like a piece of bait for the legal department of Disney.

That is precisely what it's intended to be. Unfortunately, it's not very good bait. It's a piece of rotten meat visibly coated with arsenic.

On the otherhand, if they do not try to kill it, a small piece of fair use got got accepted, and will set a precedence.

It won't set any legal precedent. Precedents aren't set when people choose not to bother bringing a case to court, precedents are set when cases are decided by courts.

What might be interesting is a series of videos, each one slightly further out of the bounds of Fair Use, until one is so clearly not Fair Use that Disney decides it needs to respond. Then if the author of the videos could arrange for the whole series to be brought into court, the court might have to decide where, exactly, to draw the line. It's not clear to me how the whole series could be brought in, though. It seems more likely that the court would confine its analysis to the specific video that Disney complains about.

Disney irony (5, Insightful)

D3 (31029) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207821)

The fact that Disney is working so hard to extend copyrights to an indefinite amount of time is rather ironic considering their biggest hits are from public domain stories. In fact, I hope a good EFF or other lawyer gets to point out in court that basically Disney would not likely exist if it weren't for the public domain.

How does it stack up on the "four-factor" test? (4, Informative)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 6 years ago | (#19207867)

Strictly ignorant lay opinion here, but I'd think it would be OK according to the informal fair-use guidelines widely referenced by universities and libraries, e.g. the University of Texas system. [utsystem.edu]

"Factor 1: Character of the use:" seems to me that in their first column it's nonprofit, and arguably educational. In the middle, it's criticism, commentary, and most bodaciously "transformative."

"Factor 2: What is the nature of the work to be used?": Imaginative and published, somewhere in the "doesn't tip the balance" part of University of Texas' scale.

"Factor 3: How much of the work will you use?" Only a small amount is being used for each work. I'm not sure what the total amount used from any individual work is, but it's tiny.

"Factor 4: If this kind of use were widespread, what effect would it have on the market for the original or for permissions?" I find it impossible to believe that a person with a copy of this video would show it to their kids in lieu of any of the Disney films from which the clips were taken. And I don't believe the Disney organization is currently making any money at all licensing clips for use in videos like this one.

Re:How does it stack up on the "four-factor" test? (1)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208135)

"Factor 4: If this kind of use were widespread, what effect would it have on the market for the original or for permissions?"
I also happened to notice a comment on the video where someone said "Wow, makes me want to go watch all those disney films." So you could say that it actually increased the market by just a little bit.

an insane amount of time to assemble? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19207937)

"It was created by Eric Faden of Bucknell University and must have taken an insane amount of time to assemble. "

It's brilliant, and all credit to Mr. Faden for his great work.

But re: "it must have taken an insane amount of time to assemble"... Just to point out how it looks from the other guy's point of view, I'd estimate (as a filmmaker) that it'd take me a couple of days to cut something like this together, plus a couple of days research. i.e. four days or so for one person. Please compare and contrast with the 3-4 years it took hundreds if not thousands of people to make any of one the movies shown in the montage.

Now that's "an insane amount of time to assemble".

I'm not defending unfair copyright -- but please remember, this stuff doesn't grow on trees.

Re:an insane amount of time to assemble? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19208083)

Well, you need to remember that this is Taco we're talking about--a guy whose job consists of clicking the "accept story" button every 30 minutes or so.

Re:an insane amount of time to assemble? (1)

Neeth (887729) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208507)

but please remember, this stuff doesn't grow on trees

But is does! Metaphorically speaking, ofcourse. In the old days companies like Walt Disney were the only ones to create content as marvellous as this, and it took years of hard labour. But now *a lot* of independant artist, filmmakers, musicians create wunderful stuff as wel and publish it through the internet. Things are different these days. And the way we consume and produce is very different than 70 years ago.
Now, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be legal protection like copyright, but IMHO there should be other forms of protections and regulations.

Make sure... (4, Informative)

yakumo.unr (833476) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208005)

you actually read the green screen FBI warning, it's not your ordinary copyright notice :)

Corel?? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19208023)

Since when did Corel enter the web mirroring buisness?

If disney doesn't blow a gasket with that (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208109)

Here's two more chances.

Ariel is a dirty mermaid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related& v=K4b7o4CJDdw [youtube.com]

and Jasmine is a dirty princess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqpD4zX7Sw0&mode=re lated&search= [youtube.com]

Original animation with the songs redubbed...holy crap, funny! Disney's Nazgul are already riding, the creators will be dragged back to Mouschwitz for sure.

Nicely done! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#19208477)

Now we just need to get the EFF's protection and backing if this video is challenged in any way. How much egg in their face can they handle if they attempt to have this video yanked down? After all, it's all about education, parody and free expression and while all of its video and audio content is derived from Disney cartoons, the bits and pieces are so small that it's unquestionably small enough to be within fair use rules. And does it diminish the value of the original work? I think "no" but that's probably the best angle for Disney lawyers to take.

Don't criticize Disney!! (3, Funny)

Siener (139990) | more than 6 years ago | (#19208781)

They are the defenders of copyright! If it wasn't for their lobbying efforts the copyright of Mickey Mouse would already have expired. Imagine the chaos! Anyone would be able to create Mickey Mouse material, effectively stealing money from Disney's pockets and removing all incentive for them to create anything new - it would give people free reign to steal their work.

If copyrights expire then everyone could just profit from other people's work instead of having to come up with original material the way Disney has over the years. Imagine if Disney could just use works with expired copyright instead of creating originals like Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Beauty and the Beast, Treasure Island (Planet), the Little Mermaid and hundreds more ...Oh, wait...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...