Michael Jackson Estate Turns the 'Fair Use' Tables on Disney(torrentfreak.com)
torrentfreak.com
Michael Jackson Estate Turns the 'Fair Use' Tables on Disney
https://torrentfreak.com/michael-jackson-estate-turns-the-fair-use-table-on-disney-180531/
80 comments
Disney only cares about the law when it profits them. Remember that they rose to fame by using stories that were in the public domain and exempt from copyright, then lobbied to extend their own copyright indefinitely.
Nothing you've said implies Disney violated any laws, however much I disagree with their actions.
Small companies innovate.
Large companies litigate.
Mega companies legislate.
Small companies innovate.
Large companies litigate.
Mega companies legislate.
> Nothing you've said implies Disney violated any laws, however much I disagree with their actions.
This is a problem with the US' letter of the law legal system. We make excuses and justify actions because they aren't explicitly listed as illegal, even though we all know they're in bad faith.
This is a problem with the US' letter of the law legal system. We make excuses and justify actions because they aren't explicitly listed as illegal, even though we all know they're in bad faith.
If you mean that judges or law enforcement should be able to punish actions that are not against the law, then I disagree wholeheartedly.
> Remember that they rose to fame by using stories that were in the public domain and exempt from copyright, then lobbied to extend their own copyright indefinitely.
And now try to claim exclusive rights over those same stories, no less.
And now try to claim exclusive rights over those same stories, no less.
They also used Stravinsky's music and didn't pay him.
Sources? Copyright issues back then were a bit tricky. 28 years with mandatory registration, and so Stravinsky's Rite Of Spring (1913) is around the line of 27 years to Disney's Fantasia (1940), and if Stravinsky didn't register it, then the only organization they'd have to pay is the Philadelphia Orchestra, depending on when it was recorded...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law_of_th...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032455/soundtrack?ref_=tt_trv_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law_of_th...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0032455/soundtrack?ref_=tt_trv_...
What does that have to do with the simple statement of fact “they didn’t pay him”?
Whether they were required to or not doesn’t matter at all. They didn’t pay him. They could have payed him even if they were not required to by law.
Whether they were required to or not doesn’t matter at all. They didn’t pay him. They could have payed him even if they were not required to by law.
It has to do with the relevance of that fact.
“[I]f Disney’s position on fair use of the Estate’s copyrights were accepted one could create a two-hour documentary about the Star Wars franchise, by summarizing each film and using extensive clips from each film while playing the iconic Star Wars music in the background of interviews and narration, and all without permission from Disney."
Great quote
Great quote
Isn't that what the (in)famous RedLetterMedia reviews of the Star Wars prequels did?
Yes.
But... are they legal? I wouldn't consider that a sure thing. As much as I've enjoyed some of them, I've often thought the "extensive video review" industry is very likely on the wrong side of copyright. It is true they check off a lot of the fair use criteria, certainly. But one of the core determinations is "can you consume this work in lieu of the original?" and some of those things come perilously close to that line, if they don't outright cross it. Obviously, it is not the same experience, but you certainly come away from such a review knowing all the characters, all the major plot points and often a significant portion of the minor ones, probably the best special effects scenes, a decent slice of the music, and the ability to fairly thoroughly BS your way through a conversation about the movie with people who went to it the normal way without them necessarily realizing you never actually saw it.
But... are they legal? I wouldn't consider that a sure thing. As much as I've enjoyed some of them, I've often thought the "extensive video review" industry is very likely on the wrong side of copyright. It is true they check off a lot of the fair use criteria, certainly. But one of the core determinations is "can you consume this work in lieu of the original?" and some of those things come perilously close to that line, if they don't outright cross it. Obviously, it is not the same experience, but you certainly come away from such a review knowing all the characters, all the major plot points and often a significant portion of the minor ones, probably the best special effects scenes, a decent slice of the music, and the ability to fairly thoroughly BS your way through a conversation about the movie with people who went to it the normal way without them necessarily realizing you never actually saw it.
> "can you consume this work in lieu of the original?"
Grab some 8yo, throw them in front of the RLM reviews, and tell them it's Star Wars... are they gonna watch it and be equally satisfied?
Extensive reviews are just like in-extensive reviews... Knowing all the characters is a staple of movie reviews in all forms, as are plot synopses. Story import of character and scene does not factor in to whether it is review-able in any medium. These issues are are applicable to most written movie reviews, book reviews, and song reviews too. They are exempt from Copyright for the same reasons. Why would we want a culture where superficial critique is acceptable, but in-depth critique is rejected?
You hit the nail on the head: "it is not the same experience". If it starts providing some of the same experience, via excessive clips or music, then they infringe. Too much of a song, clips with no purpose, etc. RLM is among the better cases for meaningful reviews.
Grab some 8yo, throw them in front of the RLM reviews, and tell them it's Star Wars... are they gonna watch it and be equally satisfied?
Extensive reviews are just like in-extensive reviews... Knowing all the characters is a staple of movie reviews in all forms, as are plot synopses. Story import of character and scene does not factor in to whether it is review-able in any medium. These issues are are applicable to most written movie reviews, book reviews, and song reviews too. They are exempt from Copyright for the same reasons. Why would we want a culture where superficial critique is acceptable, but in-depth critique is rejected?
You hit the nail on the head: "it is not the same experience". If it starts providing some of the same experience, via excessive clips or music, then they infringe. Too much of a song, clips with no purpose, etc. RLM is among the better cases for meaningful reviews.
"Grab some 8yo, throw them in front of the RLM reviews, and tell them it's Star Wars... are they gonna watch it and be equally satisfied?"
That is not the question the law asks. The question the law asks is the one I gave. It is naked and unashamedly commercial in nature. A more way of phrasing it might be, grab an 8yo who has not seen the movie in question, show them the review, maybe take a moment to wonder if that's necessarily a good idea for this specific review, and then ask them if they are still interested in seeing the movie. Or perhaps better, if we're talking 8, sit them in front of the movie and see if perhaps they wander away halfway through because they already know the ending.
At the margin, the answer is likely to be that the review substantially reduces the need to consume the original content. That is, for a single case it's trivial to imagine anything you want happening. But if you imagine repeating that experiment thousands of times, is the desire to view going to go down? It's easy to hypothesize your kid saying "yes I still want to see it all the way through in fact I want it more than ever" but that's just an assertion moreso than an argument. It's a possible outcome, but I find it much easier to believe that at the margin, desire is reduced. In that case it would be very likely to fall afoul of current fair use law; even given that again I fully stipulate their superficial conformance to a number of the 4-part test for fair use in US judicial decisions they could still lose.
That is not the question the law asks. The question the law asks is the one I gave. It is naked and unashamedly commercial in nature. A more way of phrasing it might be, grab an 8yo who has not seen the movie in question, show them the review, maybe take a moment to wonder if that's necessarily a good idea for this specific review, and then ask them if they are still interested in seeing the movie. Or perhaps better, if we're talking 8, sit them in front of the movie and see if perhaps they wander away halfway through because they already know the ending.
At the margin, the answer is likely to be that the review substantially reduces the need to consume the original content. That is, for a single case it's trivial to imagine anything you want happening. But if you imagine repeating that experiment thousands of times, is the desire to view going to go down? It's easy to hypothesize your kid saying "yes I still want to see it all the way through in fact I want it more than ever" but that's just an assertion moreso than an argument. It's a possible outcome, but I find it much easier to believe that at the margin, desire is reduced. In that case it would be very likely to fall afoul of current fair use law; even given that again I fully stipulate their superficial conformance to a number of the 4-part test for fair use in US judicial decisions they could still lose.
The question you’re bringing up is why do people consume entertainment. Is it for the memes, or is it for the artifact (like a movie)?
If you believe it’s for the memes, then extended reviews like RLM wouldnt be allowed. If you believe it’s for the artifact as the creator meant for you to consume it, then RLM is off the hook.
Personally I don’t think people consume entertainment for the memes, at least not primarily. The memes arise from the interpretation of the individual and the group that consumes the entertainment. The creators of the artifact mean for you to consume it in a specific way, and if you reproduce that without their permission then you are violating copyright.
If you believe it’s for the memes, then extended reviews like RLM wouldnt be allowed. If you believe it’s for the artifact as the creator meant for you to consume it, then RLM is off the hook.
Personally I don’t think people consume entertainment for the memes, at least not primarily. The memes arise from the interpretation of the individual and the group that consumes the entertainment. The creators of the artifact mean for you to consume it in a specific way, and if you reproduce that without their permission then you are violating copyright.
That is not even remotely close to what RedLetterMedia did...
RLM made a critique and review -- distinctly mentioned in fair use laws -- using star wars clips. Absolutely legal, 100%, explicitly protected. Movie reviews get to show bits of movies, book reviews get to mention characters, etc etc within strict guidelines (hence the re-release of the review).
What the lawyers are talking about in this case is showing almost all of Star Wars with some interviews in front of it, calling it a "documentary", and then having full usage to complete songs. Very different. They are talking about other publishers sneakily re-releasing Star Wars for profit, not reviews.
RLM made a critique and review -- distinctly mentioned in fair use laws -- using star wars clips. Absolutely legal, 100%, explicitly protected. Movie reviews get to show bits of movies, book reviews get to mention characters, etc etc within strict guidelines (hence the re-release of the review).
What the lawyers are talking about in this case is showing almost all of Star Wars with some interviews in front of it, calling it a "documentary", and then having full usage to complete songs. Very different. They are talking about other publishers sneakily re-releasing Star Wars for profit, not reviews.
Those did have the significant difference of not being aired on primetime TV for profit, though.
I am pretty sure someone in RLM makes a profit from these productions. If they don't, I'd be disappointed.
It's even worse then being aired on primetime TV - it was put out on the wide-open internet, for anyone and everyone to see.
It's even worse then being aired on primetime TV - it was put out on the wide-open internet, for anyone and everyone to see.
I am unclear on why the parent comment is (was) being downvoted. It is relevant, and very likely true. Red Letter Media shows every sign to me of being one of those little 3-4 person companies living on YouTube revenue. The extensive movie reviews aren't all they do but it's certainly a non-trivial portion of their reputation they are monetizing.
That matters in practice because you're less likely to stir up the ire of IP holders, but legally, the lack of commercialization of infringing work doesn't mean much.
> legally, the lack of commercialization of infringing work doesn't mean much.
That's not correct — according to the Copyright Act's fair-use provision, the purpose of an infringing use, including whether it's commercial or for nonprofit- or educational purposes, is the first-listed of four factors to consider in determining whether the infringing use is "fair."
The Supreme Court discussed this in the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case. In that case, the owner of the copyright in the Roy Orbison classic Oh, Pretty Woman had sued 2 Live Crew for their down-and-dirty parody of the song. The Court held that the parody was fair use, even though it was commercial, largely because the parody was "transformative." [0]
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html#FNSRC...
That's not correct — according to the Copyright Act's fair-use provision, the purpose of an infringing use, including whether it's commercial or for nonprofit- or educational purposes, is the first-listed of four factors to consider in determining whether the infringing use is "fair."
The Supreme Court discussed this in the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case. In that case, the owner of the copyright in the Roy Orbison classic Oh, Pretty Woman had sued 2 Live Crew for their down-and-dirty parody of the song. The Court held that the parody was fair use, even though it was commercial, largely because the parody was "transformative." [0]
[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html#FNSRC...
I hope Disney wins. The 1998 Copyright Extension is over this year and WELL POSSIBLY we could get things back into public domain again!!!
Can we please figure out how we can have renewable copyright law which cost over $1,000 a year per copyright item. That way Disney can keep Mickey Mouse and 99% of the rest gets released as public domain. If not they are looking to increase the Copyright to 125 years after death.
I pray the reign of terror of Mickey Mouse might be over soon. https://boingboing.net/2018/01/08/sonny-bono-is-dead.html
Can we please figure out how we can have renewable copyright law which cost over $1,000 a year per copyright item. That way Disney can keep Mickey Mouse and 99% of the rest gets released as public domain. If not they are looking to increase the Copyright to 125 years after death.
I pray the reign of terror of Mickey Mouse might be over soon. https://boingboing.net/2018/01/08/sonny-bono-is-dead.html
>Can we please figure out how we can have renewable copyright law which cost over $1,000 a year per copyright item.
No fuck Disney and their reshaping of America's copyright law. For one stupid animated mouse they changed how the entire Public Domain worked. It's not really possible to boycott Disney at this point, but if I could I would because of this issue alone.
No fuck Disney and their reshaping of America's copyright law. For one stupid animated mouse they changed how the entire Public Domain worked. It's not really possible to boycott Disney at this point, but if I could I would because of this issue alone.
>It's not really possible to boycott Disney at this point
How not? I consume nearly no Disney media. My biggest consumption right now would likely be hulu, and that's a shared account that I don't pay for
How not? I consume nearly no Disney media. My biggest consumption right now would likely be hulu, and that's a shared account that I don't pay for
Because they own so many things. ESPN, Marvel (movies and comics), Photobucket, the History channel, 8 local TV stations, a documentary The Trial of Adolf Eichmann which aired on PBS, Vice Media. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Disney and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_production_companies_o...
To be honest, and I admit that this is just me, but you described a whole lot of media I don’t consume and never will. I didn’t even realize that my viewing/listening habits amounted to a Disney boycott, but there it is. I guess they helped me along by being such crap.
It's just an example of their breadth. It would be difficult to intentionally boycott them because you'd have to cross-reference everything against a huge list of random junk like that.
Disney also has partnerships with studios behind Youtube channels who make money by mocking Disney. Epic Rap Battles has a lucrative (to all parties) partnership with MCN Maker Studios. Maker is owned by Disney.[0]
[0]http://newmediarockstars.com/2015/08/did-epic-rap-battles-pi...
[0]http://newmediarockstars.com/2015/08/did-epic-rap-battles-pi...
How about ABC or ESPN? If not them I'm sure there are a dozen other examples of things Disney owns that may or may not be common knowledge.
I'm not saying it's impossible but it is sure hard at this point. Personally I'd really feel like I was missing out by boycotting Star Wars or Marvel. I know not everyone likes the direction Disney is taking these franchises but I continue to enjoy them, especially when sharing with my kids. I'd miss out if I tried to boycott Disney.
Doesn't mean I like them as a company though!
I'm not saying it's impossible but it is sure hard at this point. Personally I'd really feel like I was missing out by boycotting Star Wars or Marvel. I know not everyone likes the direction Disney is taking these franchises but I continue to enjoy them, especially when sharing with my kids. I'd miss out if I tried to boycott Disney.
Doesn't mean I like them as a company though!
[deleted]
Never cared much for the original Star Wars, and certainly don't care for the new ones. Don't care for the vast majority of movies, or even traditional media. I don't consume sports, so the only ESPN I view is Five-Thirty-Eight on election cycles. Meanwhile I haven't watched TV, or ABC in 8 years. Apparently I'm (accidentally) boycotting a lot of media.
I actually didn't realize it was so hard to avoid most of those things. They're full of the same old same old, and produce nearly no satisfaction for me. It's like eating fast food, very tasty, but of no quality. Though I say that, and yet regularly consume fast food. Goes to show my opinion of most "mainstream" media I guess
I actually didn't realize it was so hard to avoid most of those things. They're full of the same old same old, and produce nearly no satisfaction for me. It's like eating fast food, very tasty, but of no quality. Though I say that, and yet regularly consume fast food. Goes to show my opinion of most "mainstream" media I guess
Disney owns 30% of Hulu and is purchasing 21st Century Fox which owns an additional 30% of Hulu.
Yes, and I didn't __need__ hulu. If it was my choice, I wouldn't have the account.
It is your choice, especially if you don't pay for it.
My mother pays for the account whether I use it or not. I cannot affect her purchase of it (I've tried). I don't have a choice on whether or not disney makes money from that account.
Do you ever go to any Marvel films?
I've seen very few of them since Iron Man 2. I don't particularly care for them. I have paid out of pocket for a single Star Wars film. I don't think I purchase much media they are connected to, more out of apathy than purposeful boycott, and I think it would certainly be possible to boycott them, just disappointing to some friends who enjoy their content. I took issue with "nearly impossible to boycott"
Or just do what the original copyright law did -- you get 14 years with a renewal option for 14 more years. That's it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law_of_th...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright_law_of_th...
Cost should rise proportionally to length of copyright to disincentivize retaining copyrights indefinitely.
Ex.
First 10 years - free
Second 10 years - $1k/year
Third 10 years - $10k/year
Fourth 10 years - $100k/year
and so on...
Ex.
First 10 years - free
Second 10 years - $1k/year
Third 10 years - $10k/year
Fourth 10 years - $100k/year
and so on...
So under your system, big blockbuster productions would have the longest copyright term.
I'd like to try exactly the opposite: when a work has been seen by a million people, it becomes public domain — whether that takes one year or 100 years.
Why? Because when you make a derivative work of Harry Potter or Star Wars you are not thinking that you can hoodwink your audience into believing that yours is the original, rather you're writing for a cultural context that assumes that people know the original. And to me that's exactly the underlying idea behind fair use.
I'd like to try exactly the opposite: when a work has been seen by a million people, it becomes public domain — whether that takes one year or 100 years.
Why? Because when you make a derivative work of Harry Potter or Star Wars you are not thinking that you can hoodwink your audience into believing that yours is the original, rather you're writing for a cultural context that assumes that people know the original. And to me that's exactly the underlying idea behind fair use.
I think it's done this way as a compromise to the current copyright holders.
Disney can and will easily pay 100,000 per year for all their productions in the vault, so no change in the status quo there.
However, most sci-fi books from the 70s which are already out of print, will become public domain, and you can now write "fan-fiction" for it and get paid without having to seek out the original copyright holders (if they still even exist).
It's questionable if Asimov's estate will pay 100,000 per year for each of his short stories, and lots of those make fantastic premises. If we didn't have eternal copyright, they'd make up a part of our literary landscape like Romeo and Juliet, or fairy tales do---something that can be freely alluded to, or redone.
Disney can and will easily pay 100,000 per year for all their productions in the vault, so no change in the status quo there.
However, most sci-fi books from the 70s which are already out of print, will become public domain, and you can now write "fan-fiction" for it and get paid without having to seek out the original copyright holders (if they still even exist).
It's questionable if Asimov's estate will pay 100,000 per year for each of his short stories, and lots of those make fantastic premises. If we didn't have eternal copyright, they'd make up a part of our literary landscape like Romeo and Juliet, or fairy tales do---something that can be freely alluded to, or redone.
The Monster (Short Story) would make an unbelievably great movie. It was written in 1948 70 YEARS AGO and is still under copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monster_(short_story)
Now that I thought about it. The Monster is the best story of the century and it can't be touched.
Now that I thought about it. The Monster is the best story of the century and it can't be touched.
One idea that I had was to have copyrights expire after e.g. 20 years, but allow for renewals in exchange for an exponentially growing renewal fee. The first ten-year renewal would cost 1 million dollars (granting 30 years of copyright), and each subsequent renewal would last 5 years and cost twice as much. At this rate, holding a copyright for 75 years would cost about a billion dollars cumulatively, with another billion dollars required to hold it for 80 years and so forth.
[deleted]
I’ve read the complaint, and I doubt Disney’s legal department is concerned by this lawsuit. I’m going to predict that Disney has a blanket license for most of the music recordings through ASCAP or whatever other organization would normally handle those licenses.
The bulk of the complaint lists terrible things Disney’s legal department has done, but it’s not clear how those actions are legally relevant. “Hypocrisy” is not one of the factors in whether something is fair use.
The statement that other documentaries get licenses from the estate doesn’t say whether those documentaries are actually legally required to get those licenses. And it certainly doesn’t say whether Disney needs a license for its project.
I’m going to predict that the music recording claims will be dropped when Disney shows it has a blanket license, and the other claims do look like fair use to me. But maybe Disney will settle before trial.
The bulk of the complaint lists terrible things Disney’s legal department has done, but it’s not clear how those actions are legally relevant. “Hypocrisy” is not one of the factors in whether something is fair use.
The statement that other documentaries get licenses from the estate doesn’t say whether those documentaries are actually legally required to get those licenses. And it certainly doesn’t say whether Disney needs a license for its project.
I’m going to predict that the music recording claims will be dropped when Disney shows it has a blanket license, and the other claims do look like fair use to me. But maybe Disney will settle before trial.
There's no such thing as a "blanket license" that term is nonsensical. Rights to footage, or sync rights to audio, are always case by case.
Presumably you've gotten yourself confused with what are called mechanical licenses, which only cover songs, and only the music and lyrics (not original recordings) and have basically nothing to do with this at all.
Presumably you've gotten yourself confused with what are called mechanical licenses, which only cover songs, and only the music and lyrics (not original recordings) and have basically nothing to do with this at all.
You’re right: https://www.ascap.com/help/career-development/a-checklist-fo... suggests that the kind of license I would expect a producer to need wouldn’t come from ASCAP.
So all four claims are relevant, but Disney’s alleged hypocrisy doesn’t seem to me to serve any purpose in the complaint (other than to get the thing noticed by the media).
So all four claims are relevant, but Disney’s alleged hypocrisy doesn’t seem to me to serve any purpose in the complaint (other than to get the thing noticed by the media).
I suppose one reason for hypocrisy to matter is that it proves they knew what they were doing. If I do $FOO, I could think that $FOO was okay. If I do $FOO while actively suing other people for doing $FOO, then it's obvious that I'm knowingly doing something wrong (or perjuring myself, I suppose).
Yeah in law this is called estoppel and it could be very relevant to this case.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel
Blanket use licenses do exist. For example, CCLI licenses allow churches and certain non-profits to use a large body of copyrighted works (many of them under ASCAP) in several different ways (but definitely not the equivalents of mechanical and sync licenses — those are always case-by-case).
There's no such thing as a blanket license, in the sense that you get to use any and all copyrighted footage you'd like for a TV broadcast. There's nothing kind of like that either. A CCLI would allow you to use footage from rightsholders that have chosen to allow such usage.
The confusion here appears to be with what are called compulsory licenses for music[0]. In those circumstances, people are allowed to pay songs on radio stations and in live music venues, etc, without having to negotiate with each individual rightsholder. A person who wrote a song has no choice about who is allowed to play one of their songs in a stadium, or on a radio broadcast, once they've publicly released the work.
[0] There is an exception for live broadcasts, which don't apply here either.
The confusion here appears to be with what are called compulsory licenses for music[0]. In those circumstances, people are allowed to pay songs on radio stations and in live music venues, etc, without having to negotiate with each individual rightsholder. A person who wrote a song has no choice about who is allowed to play one of their songs in a stadium, or on a radio broadcast, once they've publicly released the work.
[0] There is an exception for live broadcasts, which don't apply here either.
> There's no such thing as a blanket license, in the sense that you get to use any and all copyrighted footage you'd like for a TV broadcast.
No argument with you there. My point was that there do exist some types of blanket licenses (for specific purposes, of a limited body of works).
No argument with you there. My point was that there do exist some types of blanket licenses (for specific purposes, of a limited body of works).
ASCAP only deals with performance. The rules for dealing with TV (and film) rights is very different and doesn't involve ASCAP or BMI.
I don’t think there’s such a thing as a blanket license. There is for public performance (like playing music over the speakers in a restaurant) but a sync license needs to be negotiated.
I’m not an expert on the legal/business side but I used to write music for tv shows when they couldn’t secure licenses and needed replacements.
I’m not an expert on the legal/business side but I used to write music for tv shows when they couldn’t secure licenses and needed replacements.
Thank you.
I notice ASCAP’s website has information on licenses for TV stations, but not for, say, TV shows.
I notice ASCAP’s website has information on licenses for TV stations, but not for, say, TV shows.
> “Hypocrisy” is not one of the factors in whether something is fair use.
There is, however, the legal concept of estoppel, which is, essentially, a prohibition on legal-argument hypocrisy.
As I understand it (IANAL), it applies to much narrower situations than what we would, in general, consider to be hypocrisy, but it can still provide an advantage, especially here.
There is, however, the legal concept of estoppel, which is, essentially, a prohibition on legal-argument hypocrisy.
As I understand it (IANAL), it applies to much narrower situations than what we would, in general, consider to be hypocrisy, but it can still provide an advantage, especially here.
Michael Jackson Estate owns everything he has done. They use to own the Beatles catalog in entirety and just sold what was left for $750,000,000. I think Disney Lawyers have their hands full.
[deleted]
> I’m going to predict that Disney has a blanket license for most of the music recordings through ASCAP or whatever other organization would normally handle those licenses.
If that's the case, why would Disney's attorneys bother trying to cite Fair Use as an excuse?
> Disney’s attorney used fair use as a defense. The company argued that it could legally use Jackson’s copyrighted material since the broadcast was labeled as a documentary.
If that's the case, why would Disney's attorneys bother trying to cite Fair Use as an excuse?
> Disney’s attorney used fair use as a defense. The company argued that it could legally use Jackson’s copyrighted material since the broadcast was labeled as a documentary.
I’m no expert, but I doubt attorneys generally do a lot of research when answering phone calls. It wouldn’t surprise me if the attorney answering the call didn’t check with anyone involved in making the show before opening their mouth.
Besides, we have the estate’s claim that Disney’s attorney said “fair use,” but no information on whether that’s all the attorney said.
Besides, we have the estate’s claim that Disney’s attorney said “fair use,” but no information on whether that’s all the attorney said.
I would wager attorneys are very careful when opening their mouth over the telephone.
But you're right, it's second-hand at this point.
But you're right, it's second-hand at this point.
It looks like I was wrong about the ASCAP license (e.g., https://www.ascap.com/help/career-development/a-checklist-fo... ). As for lawyerly risk aversion: lawyers certainly don’t want to create a liability unnecessarily, and lawyers don’t want to lock themselves in to a strategy without giving it some thought, but lawyers are also human and, I assume, sometimes ask “what is the fastest way to end this phone call without creating liability for my employer and without locking me into a legal strategy?”
Did they mention Napster enough times in the article? Each time the article lost more credibility with me and felt more like buzz feed.
The line about Napster references, and later directly quotes, a section from the complaint PDF (page 6, section 16).
Also you are reading a blog on the "Torrent Freak" website... so they may be zooming in on the part of this story that resonates with this author and typical readership.
Yeah, but they repeated that line like 5 times. It was annoying to read and felt like SEO positioning.
Wow, it's not every day that I agree with Disney, but here I am.
As an avid Pirate, I don't care if Disney made digital copies of Michael Jackson's music for use in a commercially successful documentary about Michael Jackson's life.
As an avid Pirate, I don't care if Disney made digital copies of Michael Jackson's music for use in a commercially successful documentary about Michael Jackson's life.
But perhaps as an avid pirate, you might care about the naked hypocrisy exhibited by Disney re: copyright, which is the crux of the Jackson estate's clever argument here (clever to the layperson, at least -- who knows if it will hold much weight if the case goes to trial).
As a pirate siding with Disney makes sense in this case and it could be used against Disney in future fases
it comes to a point where Piracy isn't just about caring, but from old habits. What are they going to do if I don't pay their piracy fines? Find me and put me in jail for something they cannot prove even happened?
> something they cannot prove even happened
You just implicated yourself, and in a public forum no less. Alone this wouldn't be enough for legal action, but it could prove very useful, especially for showing intent for criminal prosecution. In any event, you never know how information can be used, and used against you.
You just implicated yourself, and in a public forum no less. Alone this wouldn't be enough for legal action, but it could prove very useful, especially for showing intent for criminal prosecution. In any event, you never know how information can be used, and used against you.
> Find me and put me in jail for something they cannot prove even happened?
Yes. It happens more than you think.
Yes. It happens more than you think.
But do you agree with their argument? Or just that anyone can use anything for anything?
Hmm, this is an interesting question to me.
I think that I agree with their argument. Even if you play full Michael Jackson songs in your commercially successful documentary, I think this still could reasonably be construed as fair use. Maybe it would be a bit better if the clips were only 15-30 seconds, but the songs are relevant to the topic, and calling it a "documentary" is accurate and non arbitrary in this case.
If you were making an action film and you used my entire song for a 3 minute long car chase, and you made $500,000,000 in the movie, maybe you should pay me a small fee in my opinion as a nice gesture.
But to answer your ultimate question, I am very, very ardent pirate and I believe that literally nothing should be copyrighted.
I do not want to be sued by Disney and I do not want to sue Disney. If one of us profits immensely, it would be helpful to share the spoils, otherwise one might generally think of you as "a dick".
But the MJ side lawyers just want money, not to protect the integrity of his artwork.
I think that I agree with their argument. Even if you play full Michael Jackson songs in your commercially successful documentary, I think this still could reasonably be construed as fair use. Maybe it would be a bit better if the clips were only 15-30 seconds, but the songs are relevant to the topic, and calling it a "documentary" is accurate and non arbitrary in this case.
If you were making an action film and you used my entire song for a 3 minute long car chase, and you made $500,000,000 in the movie, maybe you should pay me a small fee in my opinion as a nice gesture.
But to answer your ultimate question, I am very, very ardent pirate and I believe that literally nothing should be copyrighted.
I do not want to be sued by Disney and I do not want to sue Disney. If one of us profits immensely, it would be helpful to share the spoils, otherwise one might generally think of you as "a dick".
But the MJ side lawyers just want money, not to protect the integrity of his artwork.
[deleted]
One thing I miss from slashdot was the "from the ... department" or similar. In this case:
From the 'You reap what you sow department.'So if Disney win then they lose all their other piracy cases, but if they lose then they win their other cases?
I'm not sure which one they would prefer to have, though this will most certainly be settled out of court with some significant (for us) money changing hands.
I'm not sure which one they would prefer to have, though this will most certainly be settled out of court with some significant (for us) money changing hands.