"In thinking it through, I made the analogy that if a student had written a paper that utilized four cleverly selected quotes from significant novels to make their point [instead of using four video clips], I would be exceedingly impressed by their literacy skills." -Quoted in The English Teacher's Companion by Jim Burke, page 326
This line struck me like a thunderbolt as I was reading for class. Since the inception of copyright law, fair use clauses have permitted people to quote limited amounts without any concern for copyright. I don't need to pay the author to lift a line or two, as long as I don't claim that author's work as my own; I can quote for reviewing or academic purposes freely, and no one cares if I quote a few lines in an original work of my own (again, as long as I give credit where credit is due).
So what's the deal with fair use for films? A quick Google search yields no regulations about film use, but there's a certain illicit feel to film clips and screencaps. Am I legally liable if I arrange a bunch of film "quotes" from copyrighted works into a new work? If I use a series of screencaps for a show? Why is there a distinction, and why are companies permitted to employ DRM which prevents even fair use of their works?
I don't deal in music and video editing, so the relevance to my life is limited. But with YouTube becoming increasingly regulated re: copyright, I can't help wondering whether anyone will remember the vital use of fair use in analysis, study, and creativity.
2 comments:
Copyright law naturally varies from country to country. I assume you're speaking from an American perspective; while I am Canadian, perhaps I can offer some useful information.
Fair Use (or Fair Dealing, as it's known elsewhere) allows one to use snippets (or significant portions, depending on the purpose) of a Work without requiring them to obtain permission from the Author. As long as the purpose meets those guidelines, the nature of the Work is irrelevant. You can use material from textual, graphic, audio, or motion picture Works. Those permitted uses include such things as criticism, review, parody, and so on (in Canada, we currently do not have Fair Dealing exemptions for Parody, which sucks). If you create a new Work comprised entirely of clips from say, a popular TV show, you would need to demonstrate how its purpose fell within Fair Use guidelines. Similarly, screencaps. Read the excellent "DM of The Rings" and tell me Shamus Young isn't brilliant. However, he can never sell or otherwise benefit from his brilliance, because he did not obtain permission from New Line Cinema to use the material in that fashion; and while it's clearly a parody, I am fairly certain a court would not rule in his favour (on the other hand, if he hand-drew the whole thing, copying from screencaps, it would be fine).
As for the DRM issue, that's a failing of the legal system. At the behest of powerful lobbyists, the DMCA was enacted that gives rights to Creators that trump the statutory rights already in place for consumers. The DMCA basically says that "Yes, you have Fair Use rights, but if a publisher decides to prevent you from exercising those rights, that's their right." Which is bollocks, of course, but it's unfortunately how it is.
Copyright is a big mess, and it's going to take balls of brass on the part of legislators to fix it, both in the States and elsewhere. Some countries are doing good things- Brazil and India come to mind; but most of the developed world is being bullied by Hollywood's armies of lobbyists and their cries of "ZOMGPIRATESAREKILLINGUS!!!1!"
Aw, crap. Dupe Delete, please.
Post a Comment