This IS the Avid L2: Re: [Avid-L2] Fair use (was: I'm an editor, just shoot me)

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Re: [Avid-L2] Fair use (was: I'm an editor, just shoot me)

Fair use can be claimed by anyone. But not for anything. My understanding, pounded into my by lawyers, is that basically fair use involves copying copyrighted material for a "transformative" use…such as for criticism, commentary, or parody (comic ridicule). There is no recognized time limit that renders a copying as fair use.

Here's a good brief overview of Fair Use written by lawyer and musician Rich Stim:
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/

And here's the fantastic collection of Best Practices documents and other useful info, advice, and guidelines in fair use that covers much of the work people here on Avid-L2 (and several insurance providers say the will provide E&O insurance to work that follows these guidelines):
http://www.cmsimpact.org/fair-use

But all that means is if you follow those guidelines, perhaps you won't get sued…and if you do get sued, you will probably prevail in court (after you and/or your insurer spend a lot of time and money). Fair use isn't a get-out-of-court free card. And that may cause lawyers working for broadcasters to take a narrower view of copying that might very well be protected (and insurable) as fair use.

As for Mickey Mouse, MAD magazine has parodied the mouse and avoided a Disney lawsuit. So have some other cartoonists and artists. But ya, Disney's pretty aggressive about protecting their property through courts and lobbying. See what's been called The Mickey Mouse Protection Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act

Jim "no lawyer, but gets sucked into fair use stuff pretty regularly" Feeley

jim feeley
pov media
word image sound

> On May 26, 2015, at 9:13 PM, Steve Hullfish Steve@veralith.com [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> Actually fair use does NOT apply to anyone. The main uses are news, education and criticism. It does NOT apply broadly.
>
> Personal gain and fair use would only apply for news-which is broadly defined nowadays- or if you are a critic or teacher or researcher
>
> I've worked on enough documentaries and needed to show the provenance of material or had broadcasters question the origin of stuff to know that copyright is not nearly that broad. Try sticking the Mickey Mouse ears on something and see how far you get.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On May 26, 2015, at 11:04 PM, 'Eric J. Gleske' eric@gleske.org [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Tom -
>>
>> You missed my <sarcasm> tag. But last time I checked, "fair use" applies to anyone, not just news and media. Indeed, providing content via the web makes one part of the "media," and blogs are finding more and more case law supporting their status as "news" entities. Fair use can, in fact, be used for personal game, and often is, but it must be done within the guidelines set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 107.
>>
>> But that's another piffle for another time.
>>
>> Working at a university, it amazes me how many things people try to hide with "fair use" catch-all; and for things to be used online, far too many think the "normal" rules don't apply.
>>
>> Eric Gleske
>> Somewhere in Oregon
>>
>> On May 26, 2015, at 8:50 PM, Tom McDonnell ltr54@sbcglobal.net [Avid-L2] wrote:
>>
>> > Last time I checked "fair use" was for news and media use not a private youtube channel or personal gain. And generally copyrighted film or music is limited to 30secs to a minute for use in a news pkg unless otherwise approved by the company or artist.
>> >
>> > The only exception to that rule recently was Sony's "The Interview". I cut so much of that film in news pkgs I knew the film
>> > by heart.
>
>