Hitler Videos to be outlawed. CRAP

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well, we've all seen the famous Hitler videos on YouTube as a parody of something.  Some classics out there.  The 4 minute snippet is from a foreign film and they are exacting their copyright protection (which is perfectly fine).

So no more Hitler is pissed off clips on YouTube.   


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0422/1224268877210.html

[Tugg Speedman]

This has to affect youtube's valuation.  Add up the hits on the 200 such videos (and their repreats) and it might be a billion hits.

Sell google!!!!

[Hards Alumni]

Well, we've all seen the famous Hitler videos on YouTube as a parody of something.  Some classics out there.  The 4 minute snippet is from a foreign film and they are exacting their copyright protection (which is perfectly fine).

So no more Hitler is pissed off clips on YouTube.   


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0422/1224268877210.html

Won't work, the works are satire...

[Benny B]

Won't work, the works are satire...

But someone else's original work makes up 90% of your "satire," isn't that still copyright infringement?  (I vaguely remember from way back in PR class that you have to change something at least 15% to avoid infringement.)

The question is if you're using the same audio, the same video, and are simply adding subtitles, is that a meaningful enough change to someone's original work?

[Hards Alumni]

But someone else's original work makes up 90% of your "satire," isn't that still copyright infringement?  (I vaguely remember from way back in PR class that you have to change something at least 15% to avoid infringement.)

The question is if you're using the same audio, the same video, and are simply adding subtitles, is that a meaningful enough change to someone's original work?

fair use?  no one is making money on the youtube videos.

I'd wager that you could prove that changing subtitles is more than 15%

[Benny B]

fair use?  no one is making money on the youtube videos.

I never really understood the concept of "fair use" aside from the fact than that I can make a personal copy of a DVD for my own use (suck on that RIAA).  Nevertheless, Google (or whoever owns YouTube) is making money on YouTube videos.  So there is an exchange of value here, although the author of the satire is not participating.

I'd wager that you could prove that changing subtitles is more than 15%

The onus should be on the one claiming infringement... it's going to be even more difficult to prove that it isn't.  Either way, YouTube probably doesn't want to spend the money defending themselves, even if they are in the right.

[damuts222]

NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN!!! 

[Hards Alumni]

I never really understood the concept of "fair use" aside from the fact than that I can make a personal copy of a DVD for my own use (suck on that RIAA).  Nevertheless, Google (or whoever owns YouTube) is making money on YouTube videos.  So there is an exchange of value here, although the author of the satire is not participating.

The onus should be on the one claiming infringement... it's going to be even more difficult to prove that it isn't.  Either way, YouTube probably doesn't want to spend the money defending themselves, even if they are in the right.

if that isn't 'fair use' then very little on youtube is.

just sayin'.

[Ari Gold]

Hitler has reacted to the video ban
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fAQKa8rU_4&feature=player_embedded

twice actually
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBO5dh9qrIQ

[MUSig54]

In order to show fair use, there are four factors that are used. in accordance with 17 U.S.C. 107:

Purpose and character of the use
Nature of the copyrighted work
Amount and substantiality of the portion used
Commercial affect on the copyrighted work (including derivative works)

If this goes to trial, the court will have to weigh these factors, the 1st usually being the most important. The original work, in this case the movie, would likely be afforded, up front, pretty good protection, with the onus being on Youtube, or the video makers, to show fair use.

For these videos to constitute fair use, they have to show that they are either transformative in nature (adding something new to the original work). In this case, the Hitler videos would likely to be able to demonstrate this, as they are taking Hitler out of his original context of discussing the war to Hitler discussing whatever topic the author wants.

I think fair use would likely be held here, but, as was stated before, it is up to Youtube to put up the defense, or one of the videomakers to defend himself and try and set a precedent.

[LON]

Hitler has reacted to the video ban
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fAQKa8rU_4&feature=player_embedded

twice actually
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBO5dh9qrIQ

The second one is awesome

[Hards Alumni]

The second one is awesome

agreed.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

agreed.

I just watched it. Can't believe it's managed to stay up!

[ZiggysFryBoy]

#2 is awesome.