under law?

[madbunny]

Johnny Howard enjoys a salty mouthfull from Bush. So long as he's in government aussie laws woent be much different from american ones, except about half as strict.

There is an image I really, really didn't need.


To answer the question again:

No, AMV's are not legal.
If you read the copywright that came with your music, and DVds it says right there: "don't copy and use any part of this whatsoever."
That being said, there are ways around it (legally) such as obtaining permission from the artists or distribution company.

[trythil]

Why does this question keep comming up? Do people want to justify that everything they do must be to the letter of the law in every aspect?

I think it's because our friends RIAA, MPAA, and their cousins in other countries have successfully brainwashed the general populace into thinking

(equal? law ethics) => #t

and, therefore, said general populace is unable to make the distinction for themselves, much less read the law to figure out what the hell is really going on.

Or maybe it's just me being just as annoyed with the frequency of this question, but also being utterly unable to express frustration through any other outlet except torrential cynicism.

*shrug*

[Vlad G Pohnert]

I think it's because our friends RIAA, MPAA, and their cousins in other countries have successfully brainwashed the general populace into thinking

(equal? law ethics) => #t

Yep.... I think if they said drinking coke and watching anime was not legal anymore than some fans would actually start to panic

I wonder if it's occurred to some people that some laws are ethically wrong.... Hmmm… does the thought of RIAA's Blank CD media "surcharge" come to mind

Vlad

[Keeper of Hellfire]

No, AMV's are not legal.
If you read the copywright that came with your music, and DVds it says right there: "don't copy and use any part of this whatsoever."

That's stupid. So you believe anything someone tells you without any doubt? You have to read the law and to understand it to judge if something is illegal or not, and not to listen to a company which has interest that you don't copy. Companies lie to keep their interests. For example, I have seen a german songbook where is written at every page: "to photo copy is forbidden by law". But german copyright law explicitly allows to make private copies of copyrighted works that you obtained legally.

So it really depends at the copyright laws of every country if an AMV is legal or not. As I understood german copyright law, most AMV would be illegal in Germany because of the music. It allows to create own works by the free use of other copyrighted works without any permission of the copyright holder. Free use means that the changes to the original are remarkable, that your own ideas are the mayority of the work compared to the ideas you used from others. An example would be a collage. For AMV's this is valid for the video sequences, but the music is normally unchanged or only slightly cut, and it's an important part of the AMV. So the whole AMV probably becomes illegal, but of course only if you make it public without the permission of the copyright right holder of the song. As you can see, there is room for interpretation, depending how high the importance of the music is counted.

And there is still a backdoor, since we don't claim to be the creators of the anime or the music. We tell where we got it from. Copyright law allows to quote copyrighted works as long as you tell the source. So we simply quote the anime and the music.

[trythil]

No, AMV's are not legal.
If you read the copywright that came with your music, and DVds it says right there: "don't copy and use any part of this whatsoever."

That's stupid. So you believe anything someone tells you without any doubt? You have to read the law and to understand it to judge if something is illegal or not, and not to listen to a company which has interest that you don't copy. Companies lie to keep their interests. For example, I have seen a german songbook where is written at every page: "to photo copy is forbidden by law". But german copyright law explicitly allows to make private copies of copyrighted works that you obtained legally.

So it really depends at the copyright laws of every country if an AMV is legal or not. As I understood german copyright law, most AMV would be illegal in Germany because of the music. It allows to create own works by the free use of other copyrighted works without any permission of the copyright holder. Free use means that the changes to the original are remarkable, that your own ideas are the mayority of the work compared to the ideas you used from others. An example would be a collage. For AMV's this is valid for the video sequences, but the music is normally unchanged or only slightly cut, and it's an important part of the AMV. So the whole AMV probably becomes illegal, but of course only if you make it public without the permission of the copyright right holder of the song. As you can see, there is room for interpretation, depending how high the importance of the music is counted.

And there is still a backdoor, since we don't claim to be the creators of the anime or the music. We tell where we got it from. Copyright law allows to quote copyrighted works as long as you tell the source. 8-) So we simply quote the anime and the music. :twisted:

(1) Your argument addresses an irrelavent issue: that is, the act of making the AMV for private use only. As most of us engage in public distribution, the ramifications of that must be considered.

(2) Most of us (and a good amount of material on this site) are/is under U.S. copyright law, so specifics of German copyright law (although probably fairly similar for the reason stated in (3)) are of little help in most cases.

(3) It does not really depend on the copyright law of "every country". International copyright law enforces a number of basic copyright provisions: for example, the only party allowed to authorize "adaptations, arrangements and other alterations of [copyrighted] works" is the author of the copyrighted work, under Article 12 of the Paris Act of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works -- and Germany, Japan, and the U.S. are all part of the Berne Union, meaning that "literary and artistic works" produced in those countries enjoy protection under the Convention. Thus, there are larger forces in play.

[Keeper of Hellfire]

trythil, I don't know if you got me right.

to 1) Which of my arguments adresses an irrelevant issue? If you mean the argument with the photo copy you missed the point. It was only an example that the rights companies claim for themself aren't necessary covered by law. All other points adresses AMV in the public.

to 2)

My question is, is this legal? multy contry is nice (as in US, Canada, and any other) would be nice info.

You can see, it was explicitly asked for other countries from the starter of the thread.

to 3)

for example, the only party allowed to authorize "adaptations, arrangements and other alterations of [copyrighted] works" is the author of the copyrighted work,

Of course, such a passage you find also in the german law, but there is also a passage which allows own creative work based on copyrighted works without permission of the copyright holder. I imagine this rule wouldn't exist - for sure we would miss a lot of parodies. This shows that AMV are in a grey zone - is the creativity enough to consider it as own creation or only as a derivated work? And the backdoor I mentioned would be covered by Article 10 of the Paris Act - Fair Use.

[Kalium]

As a rule, derivative works are prohibited unless explicitly authorized. Parody is an exception to this, and explicitly protected (along with quoting to comment upon or criticize). This is how the law works. Saying where you got what from doesn't change anything.

Be aware that Fair Use is a defense in court, not a law or anything of the sort. It's 'Oh, I should be able to do this because of Fair Use' once you are already in court. Whether what you did was actually Fair Use or not is then up to the court to decide. These days, rulings have been going against Fair Use arguments.

Besides, using the Fair Use argument is a form of admission that you are indeed guilty of copyright infringement, so it's not exactly the first defense you want to use.

Oh, and the derivative works clause you are citing: those invariably require that the new work be 'sufficiently transformative', and most AMVs would likely fail that test.

[Vlad G Pohnert]

Gee people, why all the legal spatter... Are we actually trying to justify making and showing AMVs here by the law ... I saw put all that energy into making more AMVs

Vlad

[trythil]

trythil, I don't know if you got me right.

to 1) Which of my arguments adresses an irrelevant issue? If you mean the argument with the photo copy you missed the point. It was only an example that the rights companies claim for themself aren't necessary covered by law. All other points adresses AMV in the public.

You stated that private creation of an AMV is legal, and that the problems only occur when you start to publically distribute them.

An example would be a collage. For AMV's this is valid for the video sequences, but the music is normally unchanged or only slightly cut, and it's an important part of the AMV. So the whole AMV probably becomes illegal, but of course only if you make it public without the permission of the copyright right holder of the song

Videos that are released with the blessing of the original copyright holders are rare around here. That is why we are constantly on the watch for the dogs of the RIAA (and related organizations). That is also why your point, although valid, is irrelevent.

to 2)

My question is, is this legal? multy contry is nice (as in US, Canada, and any other) would be nice info.

You can see, it was explicitly asked for other countries from the starter of the thread.

My argument is that the way in which we violate the Berne Convention makes the underlying copyright systems of other countries irrelevent.

First: You have not refuted my presentation of Article 12, which I will assume means that you consent with its content and application to AMVs.

I imagine this rule wouldn't exist - for sure we would miss a lot of parodies. This shows that AMV are in a grey zone - is the creativity enough to consider it as own creation or only as a derivated work?

It is somewhat unclear, but here's the killer: most parodies and satires do not rip directly from what they parody.

Here's another example. CLAMP, the manga group, has a policy that explicitly allows for cosplay and fan art "based on" their works. However, they frown upon work that uses their work directly, no matter what the intention is. They are allowed to do that by Japanese copyright law.

That is, they wouldn't prohibit me cosplaying as Kamui from X/1999, but they would prohibit me making an X/1999 video with the X movie and their artbook scans.

There are artists that explicitly allow copying of their works in part or wholesale for the creation of new creative works. However, this is explicit permission; we have nothing like that here. Without a clearer definition of "based on", I'll stick to my argument that the wording does not include what we do in AMVs.

And the backdoor I mentioned would be covered by Article 10 of the Paris Act - Fair Use.

This is not an absolute statement, and is in fact open to much debate.

(1) It shall be permissible to make quotations from a work which has already been lawfully made available to the public, provided that their making is compatible with fair practice, and their extent does not exceed that justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries.

Do AMVs "quote" from their parent works? This is not an easy question. The idea of quotation is that you take something from someone else, unmodified or only lightly modified (i.e. with slight edits for brevity or grammatical correction) to illustrate one of your points.

If AMVs do quote, what is "fair practice" for AMV quotation? I can do things to both the audio and video that would be considered outright wrong for the usual quotation. An analogy:

Is my AMV still covered under Fair Use law? How far can you go before quotation becomes unauthorized modification?

Here are some examples of the first problem. I want to see how you defend them in terms of fair use:

1) One of my AMVs ("...and forever [dreaming]") involves extreme frame-level manipulation to make two Escaflowne characters kiss. In the entirety of Escaflowne (TV series and movie) they never kiss. There is evidence that the director of Escaflowne never wanted them to kiss in order to symbolize a relationship that goes beyond physical enjoyment. Have I stomped all over the director's vision? Is this quotation or unauthorized modification?

2) Vlad Pohnert's "Transcending Love" video uses substantial elements from three unrelated anime series (City Hunter, Cowboy Bebop, Macross Plus) to create what is essentially an original work. However, it is an original work created from copyrighted works without prior permission, and is being distributed without said permission. Has Vlad simply taken "quotations" (I use the word with a slight redefinition here; I'm sure you know what I mean) or has he committed unauthorized modification of all three copyrighted works?

Eric Kobet's "Tainted Donuts" is also a good example.

3) The AMV Hell series of videos take recontexualization to the extreme with ridiculous juxtapositions of image and sound. One particularly interesting example is the Coca-Cola jingle set to clips from Hayao Miyazaki's "On Your Mark", in which the two protagonists appear to gun down a religious organization ... for Coke. The Coca-Cola Company would most likely not agree with this statement; indeed, this kind of stuff borders on libel. (It's arguably a parody, though, so it at least might have that shield in the United States.) Is this quotation? Is it compatible with "fair practice"? Or is it just unauthorized modification?

4) Koopiskeva's "Euphoria" doesn't attempt any broad recontextualizations. What it does do, however, is significant alteration to its source footage -- I'm sure you've seen it, so I don't need to really elaborate anymore. Is it quotation or is it unauthorized modification?

5) Ian Roberts' "Shameless Rock Video" contains a scene that has confused some people between what was manipulated and what was "real". In particular, the cigar that Haruko smokes was changed to read "ROCK N' ROLL BITCH". Some people have wondered why the official FLCL DVDs do not contain that scene -- if you want, I'm sure you can Google the posts, or ask Ian for them. Are Ian's actions quotation or unauthorized modification? (If you consider it to be a modified quotation, is it still really just a quotation when it starts to warp public perception?)

6)

(2) It shall be a matter for legislation in the countries of the Union, and for special agreements existing or to be concluded between them, to permit the utilization, to the extent justified by the purpose, of literary or artistic works by way of illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching, provided such utilization is compatible with fair practice.

Although this paragraph does leave much to be determined by individual countries, it should be noted that that is conditioned upon the work being identified as a pedagogical work. The argument that AMVs as distributed on this site are "illustration in publications, broadcasts or sound or visual recordings for teaching" is a very tenuous one; the only way that I can see that argument working is if you were teaching someone graphic design or video art, which is not the purpose of this site or its video repository.

(3) Where use is made of works in accordance with the preceding paragraphs of this Article, mention shall be made of the source, and of the name of the author, if it appears thereon.

Well, if we do can be unambiguously determined to be in compliance with paragraphs (1) and (2), I guess we haven't screwed that up.

[trythil]

I need to stop making incomplete edits.

An analogy:

Is my AMV still covered under Fair Use law?

The analogy was erased, because it was redundant.

6)

There is no 6.