Fair Use in AMVs

[Zarxrax]

I came across this today, which lays out some guidelines for fair use. It has some parts that particularly address things such as AMVs. http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/res ... ine_video/

QUOTING IN ORDER TO RECOMBINE ELEMENTS TO MAKE A NEW WORK THAT DEPENDS FOR ITS MEANING ON (OFTEN UNLIKELY) RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE ELEMENTS

DESCRIPTION: Video makers often create new works entirely out of existing ones, just as in the past artists have made collages and pastiches. Sometimes there is a critical purpose, sometimes a celebratory one, sometimes a humorous or other motive, in which new makers may easily see their uses as fair under category one. Sometimes, however, juxtaposition creates new meaning in other ways. Mashups (the combining of different materials to compose a new work), remixes (the re-editing of an existing work), and music videos all use this technique of recombining existing material. Other makers achieve similar effects by adding their own new expression (subtitles, images, dialog, sound effects or animation, for example) to existing works.

PRINCIPLE: This kind of activity is covered by fair use to the extent that the reuse of copyrighted works creates new meaning by juxtaposition. Combining the speeches by two politicians and a love song, for example, as in “Bush Blair Endless Love,” changes the meaning of all three pieces of copyrighted material. Combining the image of an innocent prairie dog and three ominous chords from a movie soundtrack, as in “Dramatic Chipmunk,” creates an ironic third meaning out of the original materials. The recombinant new work has a cultural identity of its own and addresses an audience different from those for which its components were intended.

LIMITATIONS: If a work is merely reused without significant change of context or meaning, then its reuse goes beyond the limits of fair use. Similarly, where the juxtaposition is a pretext to exploit the popularity or appeal of the copyrighted work employed, or where the amount of material used is excessive, fair use should not apply. For example, fair use will not apply when a copyrighted song is used in its entirety as a sound track for a newly created video simply because the music evokes a desired mood rather than to change its meaning; when someone sings or dances to recorded popular music without comment, thus using it for its original purpose; or when newlyweds decorate or embellish a wedding video with favorite songs simply because they like those songs or think they express the emotion of the moment.

As most of us are aware, in almost all cases our use of anime would be considered fair use. The question has always been the songs. I think this goes a lot farther than many of us had believed. In fact, it seems that it would be fair use to use an entire song, as long as the intent of the song is changed, for instance if you use a song to evoke the opposite emotions of its original intent. Simply using a song because it fits with the anime would not be fair use.

[Kionon]

I strongly disagree with the previous conclusion. I feel use becomes fair when the song and the anime come together to create a coherent whole. That is what we try to do. Now, to be honest, my last few videos have had edited audio as well, however I hope the viewer is unable to tell that I have done so. Merely using the song in its entirety because it fits should not be a dis qualifier for protection under fair use. Rather, when we use whole songs, hopefully we are NOT using them as soundtracks. Rather we are usingthem as the foundation on which the whole is built. The video portion achieves its meaning by syncing up to the audio. So, the audio gathers new meaning, whether it has been edited or not, by being used as a base. Your simplest example is merely taking a romantic song and editing it to a pairing: now the song is about that pairing, and you have demonstrated it. The original intent of the song, the original characters in the song, whoever they may have been, are immaterial to the new interpretation. The song, while not edited, is still changed, intertextually. And that should be enough to warrant fair use protection.

[Zarxrax]

Yet the article says "For example, fair use will not apply when a copyrighted song is used in its entirety as a sound track for a newly created video simply because the music evokes a desired mood rather than to change its meaning".

Would not pairing a romantic song with an anime simply be using the song because it evokes a "desired mood"?

[Sukunai]

Copyright use without commonsense use is likely just asking for trouble.

That's directed at the owner by the way, not an amv creator.

If a talented editor uses your song creatively, and it results in a significant dose of defacto free publicity, my suggestion is the owner decides to call that a bonus, and lets the editor know they appreciate the compliment of finding their song that desirable.

Sure the owners want to make financial gain from their creations. But common sense demands an owner actually think BEFORE objecting.

If I had gone and used a song I thought was ideal for a video editing project, and poured my heart into the edited creation, and was then told to cease and desist, my next creation would be a video telling the entire planet what a worthless cheap ass shit the owner of the content was.

And I sure wouldn't feel bad about downloading any of their songs in the future.

If an owner of a song were to say "hey caught your edited video, and I thank you for bringing me some free market awareness" I think I would be inclined to make a point of telling the entire planet what a cool person the owner was.

It can swing both ways.

[JaddziaDax]

I've used songs I hate :/

[JaddziaDax]

technically in the case of the "dramatic prairie dog" the music was added for "mood"
>.>

[Zarxrax]

technically in the case of the "dramatic prairie dog" the music was added for "mood"
>.>

However, it only used a very very small portion of a copyrighted work, not an entire work.

[Emong]

Yet the article says "For example, fair use will not apply when a copyrighted song is used in its entirety as a sound track for a newly created video simply because the music evokes a desired mood rather than to change its meaning".

Would not pairing a romantic song with an anime simply be using the song because it evokes a "desired mood"?

Well, while it might not technically be fair use, I think it should be "fair use" in the actual meaning of the word

[Kionon]

Yet the article says "For example, fair use will not apply when a copyrighted song is used in its entirety as a sound track for a newly created video simply because the music evokes a desired mood rather than to change its meaning".

Would not pairing a romantic song with an anime simply be using the song because it evokes a "desired mood"?

No, it would not. As I mentioned, the intertextuality is changed by good editing. You still have to be skillful. Most of the songs I hear in AMVs I have never heard before, and I have no idea of the original context. My intertexual understanding of that song depends entirely on the video I am watching. In the aforementioned example, let's take Cherished Memories. I cannot stand Faith Hill, or country music in general. I never would have looked for this song, I never would have bought the CD, I never would have gone to a Faith Hill concert, and I certainly would not think about the song, alone, and what its original context should be. Instead, that song will, forever, mean 5 CMs Per Second to me, the characters and relationships involved in it, and if I ever hear it, by itself (unlikely, since I am in Japan, and surprisingly I hear very little American music), then I will think of the video. Has that not changed the meaning of the song? It certainly isn't how Faith Hill (or her record execs) intended the song to be understood.

I know some people download AMVs based on artist used, I don't. I download by editor mostly, and if not editor, then anime. There is no substitution happening, which is an absolute prerequisite for failing to be fair use. If not for AMVs, I'd likely have never heard the song, let alone listened to it alone in whatever interpretation the artist intended. How can the meaning of the original solo work be the same for me when I don't even hear it before the combination of music and video?

And even then, this idea still works with videos I do know the song before hand with. Or even further, it still works with my own videos. Take Countdown. Romance video, pairing to a romantic song. I must have heard Counting Down the Days (Natalie Imbruglia is one of my favorite artists; I have all her cds) at least twenty times before something clicked in my head, "Oh shi-, this is Voices of a Distant Star!" Now, I did do some slight editing to the audio track, but only to the repetition of the chorus at the end. Many of the ideas I express in Countdown, while universal, DO change the meaning the video. How? Well, because what I take to believe in Counting Down the Days is meant metaphorically in the original context (although who knows, really, what Natalie intended in her lyrics?), becomes literal when applied to Voices of a Distant Star. The letter narration becomes the phone text messages, and the characters really do end up a million miles away, and our characters are certainly "counting down the days." If that isn't altered, and specifically crafted meaning through video editing, then I don't know what is.

In conclusion, provided that it is clear that the song operates as part of a coherent whole, whether it is used in its entirety or not, the song's meaning is clearly altered by what visuals are connected to it, it does not provide a substitution, and should therefore be covered by fair use.

[Serv0]

This poster is a lot like fair use and copyright infringement.

51% MOTHERFUCKER. 49% SON OF A BITCH.

And with AMVS added to the side,

200% ASS RAPE.