the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the lower court decision (Cariou v Prince
) determining that 25 of the 30 Richard Prince Canal Zone
paintings using appropriated images from Patrick Cariou's Yes Rasta
book fall under Fair Use. The remaining 5 paintings were remanded back to the District Court to determine if they also fall under the Fair Use Doctrine with the now clarified proper standard. previously
posted by snaparapans
on Apr 25, 2013 -
Buffy vs Edward: Twilight Remixed (previously
), a textbook example of fair use, has been removed from YouTube
after Lionsgate's attempts to monetize with ads it were met with resistance by the video's creator. "This is what a broken copyright enforcement system looks like." [more inside]
posted by ODiV
on Jan 9, 2013 -
Prince v. Cariou, Round 2: Money Talks
Prince v. Cariou oral arguments were heard today by a three Judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. In many ways, the future of appropriation art (and Google’s image search, possibly) rests on the outcome of this case. And if today’s arguments are any indication, neither side is going to go down without a fight. [more inside]
posted by snaparapans
on May 23, 2012 -
The Stolen Scream
. In 2006, photographer Noam Galai
posted a handful of dramatic self-portraits to Flickr
. Unbeknownst to him, his screaming face slowly took on a life of its own (often as a symbol of unrest or protest), appearing in countless permutations
the world over. In this mini-documentary, Noam is surprisingly pragmatic about his accidental fame, and the fact that he only got paid once for the legal use of the picture.
posted by O9scar
on May 5, 2011 -
"Weird" Al Yankovic wanted to do a parody
of Lady Gaga's "Born This Way," so he did what he usually does: he contacted the artist and asked permission. Lady Gaga said she'd have to hear the lyrics, so Weird Al wrote the lyrics and sent them to her. Gaga then said she's have to actually hear the song, so Weird Al went into the studio and recorded it - at which point Gaga refused to give her permission. Weird Al responded by doing something he's never done in his entire career: he's asserted his fair use rights and made an unapproved parody available to the public
posted by mightygodking
on Apr 20, 2011 -
Getting smart about personal technology.
NYTimes publishes Sonia Zjawinski's assertion that other peoples' images on Flickr are probably OK to download, blow up and use to decorate her house: And if you’re wondering about copyright issues (after all, these aren’t my photos), the photos are being used by me for my own, private, noncommercial use. I’m not selling these things and not charging admission to my apartment, so I think I’m in the clear. [more inside]
posted by chesty_a_arthur
on Jun 26, 2009 -
Mashup artist Gregg Gillis, aka Girl Talk
, is another artist to try the 'pay whatever you want' Internet release model. However, his 55-minute album
consists of over 300 samples from other artists, with many current and past hits. No stranger to current controversies in copyright, Gillis also appeared in the documentary Good Copy Bad Copy
. Previously. [more inside]
posted by uaudio
on Jun 20, 2008 -
"You can't copyright anything on the Internet" Retrocrush posted an article written by thier own, to point out the "Worst Sex Scenes Ever" in the movies. Less than 30days later, the british tabloid "The Daily Star" printed an article that seems to have come directly from the site, attributing the source to a (seemingly fictitous) american magazine called "Film". Not only did the Star's news editor make the above quote, but the story was picked up by a wire service, and has seen print in several other online and print publications... Obviously it's not Fair Use. What would happen if reporters came here looking for ideas?
posted by niteHawk
on Jan 6, 2004 -
U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher On Why The DMCA Sucks
has a Great Editorial
by Rick Boucher
who says traditional "fair use" rights are at the foundation of the receipt and use of information by the American people, and those rights are now under attack.
He goes on to say Congress agreed to a fundamentally flawed bill, which created the new crime of circumvention--a crime divorced from over a century and a half of respect for the fair-use rights of consumers. The DMCA, as enacted, quite clearly tilted the balance in the Copyright Act toward complete protection and away from information availability.
"Consider the implications. A time may soon come when what is available for free on library shelves will only be available on a pay-per-use basis. It would be a simple matter for a copyright owner to impose a requirement that a small fee be paid each time a digital book or video documentary is accessed by a library patron. Even the student who wants even the most basic access to only a portion of the book to write a term paper would have to pay to avoid committing a crime."
posted by Blake
on Jan 29, 2002 -
Be very afraid.
The only real solution to this is backlash and boycott. Technical solutions to "InTether" are inadequate (especially since every such will be a violation of the DMCA
). If content vendors will only sell their material this way, don't buy!
(Ultimately, it's going to take an act of Congress to straighten this all out. How about a law making it illegal to prevent "fair use"?)
posted by Steven Den Beste
on Mar 13, 2001 -
Napster Says RIAA Trying to Stifle Technology.
Aw yeah, it's nice to see Napster get on the offensive. Armed with data showing that CD sales have increased with the rise in mp3 trading, Napster is now alleging that record companies are against the software because it reduces their 100% control of the music distribution business. But will a court allow Napster to go on while their users walk the fair-use tightrope?
posted by mathowie
on Jul 4, 2000 -
Found this over at Free Advice
in regards to the Elian Gonzalez Spoof Movie:
WHAT IS "FAIR USE" WITH RESPECT TO A COPYRIGHT?
Copyrighted work may be used for certain limited purposes by people other than the owner under the doctrine of "fair use." "Fair use" includes reproduction for specific purposes such as:
criticism and comment, including parody
I beleive that the movie is protected. How else could have the South Park used the photo in last night's episode? I doubt the AP is going to go head to head with Comedy Central over the issue.
It is just easy for big companies to threaten the little people and know that they will win. What a shame.
posted by da5id
on Apr 27, 2000 -