Fair Use in AMVs

downwithpants · Post by **downwithpants** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:16 pm

does this mean if your amv sucks to the point that there is no new "meaning" or artistic contribution added to the source materials, it's not protected under fair use?

and does this mean amv hell styled amvs are the way to go for fair use protection?

dragontamer5788 · Post by **dragontamer5788** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 7:39 pm

Ultimately, we editors will have to be responsible for those who download the video only for the song. Fortunately, this is only one of the four primary factors that determine "Fair Use" as far as US Copyright is concerned.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Granted, the US isn't the only country, but it is the only country who's laws I am familiar with. Also, I'm not a lawyer... I'm an editor... so none of what I say (in this post or otherwise) qualifies as legal advise of any kind.

Anyway, on factors 3, and 4... we are either in a gray area or the odds are against us as far as I can see. You generally use the whole song, or if not the whole song, most of the song. So we fail on factor 3. On factor 4, they can simply rip the music from our AMV for free so they can argue that we are pirating their songs. So total failure on that as well (at least as copyright distribution is concerened)

On 2 and 1, we are either safe or in the gray area. As long as you aren't selling your AMV for money, you'll be completely safe as far as factor 1 is concerned.

Ultimately, the safest thing to do is to recieve explicit permission from the source. Aside from that, AMVs seem to be in the legal gray area. Fortunately, copyright is not criminal law, it is CIVIL law. That means unless you piss off the other guys (aka: the record companies), they have no reason to spend thousands of dollars suing our asses off. Also, that means we cannot go to jail for copyright infringement. We can go bankrupt, lose our house and cars, and all our money... but we cannot go to jail >_> That is the worst case scenario. Also, it means it is only "illegal" if they want to sue us. It is not the government's job to protect copyright rights... it is the copyright holders who have to call us into court.

So at the end of the day... as long as we don't piss off the record companies, we ought to be good, regardless of copyright law. If they manage to sue us, I think we have a fighting chance... but the advantage would be to the record companies. (as if $$ to spend on lawyers wasn't enough of an advantage)

--------

As far as the anime is concerned, I think they have no chance against us in court unless we break factor 1. Again, I'm not a lawyer, but thats my understanding of things at the moment.

BasharOfTheAges · Post by **BasharOfTheAges** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:28 pm

downwithpants wrote:does this mean if your amv sucks to the point that there is no new "meaning" or artistic contribution added to the source materials, it's not protected under fair use?

and does this mean amv hell styled amvs are the way to go for fair use protection?

I've actually been of this opinion for years.

Anyone have the money to fight the million-dollar lawyer teams though? If not it doesn't much matter - you either take it up the ass or go out guns-a-blazing.

Sukunai · Post by **Sukunai** » Tue Jul 08, 2008 8:42 pm

"Anyone have the money to fight the million-dollar lawyer teams though?"

That's all that counts, and it doesn't matter even if you ARE a lawyer actually.
Being a lawyer doesn't mean much if you have an ordinary income bracket.

Why do you think OJ is innocent?

Bauzi · Post by **Bauzi** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 3:15 am

If this is really what came out of the faire use project than I´m really dissapointed Mr. Lessing (one of or "the" main person who set up this project. He even showed AMVs as an example for fair use on university) !

So record labels are still afraid that you can listen to the songs as much as you want with amvs? However they attend to stuff like lastfm where you can even rip the music in a legal way? ~okay~

dragontamer5788 · Post by **dragontamer5788** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 8:44 am

Bauzi wrote:If this is really what came out of the faire use project than I´m really dissapointed Mr. Lessing (one of or "the" main person who set up this project. He even showed AMVs as an example for fair use on university) !

So record labels are still afraid that you can listen to the songs as much as you want with amvs? However they attend to stuff like lastfm where you can even rip the music in a legal way? ~okay~

Again, I'm not a lawyer, what I say here is just my understanding of the issue. (so I might be dead wrong in some areas)

Considering that lastfm is probably paying royalties to the record labels, I find it hard to imagine that the record labels want to cut off a portion of their income by hurting lastfm. Further, these royalties are probably paying for some sort of licence that allows lastfm to put up select songs for download / streaming. Mind you, an explicit contract/licence overrides copyright law. Further, if lastfm is legally considered to be a radio station, there are additional exceptions to copyright law that apply to it.

Basically, lastfm and amvs simply do not compare. It is pretty clear to me that lastfm is operating inside the lines of copyright law.

Tono_Fyr · Post by **Tono_Fyr** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:21 am

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.

This is where the main source of debate is coming from, yes?

Well, the way I read this, when you make a video that moves and flows with a song and gives it new context, it's got a new meaning. The example of the newlyweds, for instance, means that the video isn't edited to the song, and thus provides a backdrop for the images, rather than something that interacts with them.

The Dance example says to me that they've merely given the song a new choreograph rather than a new context, which is what happens when an AMV editor creates a flowing piece to an AMV. You add your own "new context" as you force the anime (or whatever source you're using) into the song.

LivingFlame · Post by **LivingFlame** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 9:28 am

dragontamer5788 wrote:Considering that lastfm is probably paying royalties to the record labels, I find it hard to imagine that the record labels want to cut off a portion of their income by hurting lastfm. Further, these royalties are probably paying for some sort of licence that allows lastfm to put up select songs for download / streaming. Mind you, an explicit contract/licence overrides copyright law. Further, if lastfm is legally considered to be a radio station, there are additional exceptions to copyright law that apply to it.

Basically, lastfm and amvs simply do not compare. It is pretty clear to me that lastfm is operating inside the lines of copyright law.

Indeed, Last.FM signed a huge deal with a wide array of record labels, most notably EMI, Sony BMG, Universal, and Warner, not to mention a whole slew of independent labels. They are quite well within all legal bounds. The artists with tracks up on Last.FM get paid every single time one of their tracks is streamed.

See this blog post from Last.FM.

anime wardrone · Post by **anime wardrone** » Sat Jul 19, 2008 12:16 pm

BasharOfTheAges wrote:
downwithpants wrote:does this mean if your amv sucks to the point that there is no new "meaning" or artistic contribution added to the source materials, it's not protected under fair use?

and does this mean amv hell styled amvs are the way to go for fair use protection?
I've actually been of this opinion for years. Anyone have the money to fight the million-dollar lawyer teams though? If not it doesn't much matter - you either take it up the ass or go out guns-a-blazing.

either way the only one who wins is the government
This would also i think just make the government/record company look worse should it be enforced they would go after some guy as an example who is barely getting by as it is 4 4mil like the record company has gone after people before. Also think as a positive it would stop the making of those awful linkin park amvs >_<