Copyright Law Is The Killing Fields Of Culture

from the creativity-must-be-paid-for dept

It seems that a day can't go by without more examples of just how problematic our copyright setup is. J.D. Lasica has written up a great article talking about a guy who was running a nice little company that took movies and made two minute trailers advertising the films, which he would then offer to online retailers to help promote the movies. The lawyers at Disney, however, could only see the fact that someone who wasn't them appeared to be making money on their content. Even though his work was helping them sell more, they sued him for $110 million and eventually forced him to shut down the company. Since he was first sued, he went out and created a documentary of other artists who "have been threatened, sued, fined, and put out of work in the name of copyright." These are all cases where people, in an attempt to be creative and expand our culture, were instead shut down by copyright laws that have clearly gone too far.
Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Bastard Sammy, 13 Apr 2004 @ 7:02am

    No Subject Given

    Mike, I don't disagree with you on this. But how is someone distributing movie trailers enhancing our culture? And if it has enhanced our culture, how has taking these movie trailers away really hurt our culture?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Apr 2004 @ 7:47am

    No Subject Given

    While I generally agree that patent/copyright is very broken and personally lean toward very libertarian solutions, this particular story is not a very good example. Even with a much more balanced set of IP laws, one would presume that Disney would have some right to control the use of their property. Including being very, very, very stupid (stopping someone who's promoting their stuff).

    People/companies are stupid about what is and is not too their advantage all the time. How is this different because it involves IP instead of physical property?

    Sorry, Mike, but this reads like a "knee jerk" on your part. The real issue is their short-sighted reaction, not malfunctioning law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      NOBODY, 13 Apr 2004 @ 8:35am

      Re: No Subject Given

      Didn't lawrence lessig use this particular example in his most recent book?

      I think he did.

      In that context, it made sense.
      Here it doesn't.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Mike (profile), 13 Apr 2004 @ 9:04am

      Re: No Subject Given

      I still don't understand what's wrong with taking 2 minutes of material out of the movie. How is that not fair use? How is it worth a $110 million lawsuit?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Mikester, 13 Apr 2004 @ 9:49am

        Re: No Subject Given

        I could be wrong, but couldn't it be a matter related to when companies sue other companies with similar names? IE. If Starbucks coffee doesn't sue HaidaBucks coffee, they risk losing their trademark.
        So if Disney doesn't sue someone redistributing their product without their permission, couldn't they risk losing it too?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        parker, 13 Apr 2004 @ 9:52am

        Re: No Subject Given

        I think the law is pretty clear on this one. Not necessarily right, but clear. Section 106 of the copyright statute lists the preparation of derivative works as one of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. For those who donít know, section 107 provides the very vague criteria used to evaluate fair use.

        I would suspect Disney argued that the "purpose and character" of the work was commercial (leans against fair use), the nature of the copyrighted works for sale are by definition high-value and high-availability (again, leans against), and that the effect on their market is potentially negative because Disney can't carefully control what goes into the trailer (if you buy it the argument, leans against fair use).

        I would also suspect that Disney is just being careful. They don't want to set a precedent whereby others can lawfully make trailers using their footage. Imagine if I made a trailer that made their movies look smutty, or just didn't (gasp!) pre-test them to assure Disney's audience (do you feel the sense of ownership?) would approve. In this case they may benefit, but ultimately the less control they have over their IP the less value they can extract (or so the reasoning goes).

        This case seems more a case of brand protection than IP protection. In that respect I see validity in the claim and understand the outcome. If Disney wants to protect their brand, so be it. However, like the Grey Album this shows how the "derivatives works" clause is overly broad in a world where technology means reuse of ideas (something we want) often implies the creation of a derivative work.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Brian Clark, 14 Apr 2004 @ 6:11am

        Re: No Subject Given

        I still don't understand what's wrong with taking 2 minutes of material out of the movie. How is that not fair use? How is it worth a $110 million lawsuit? It might not be worth a $110M lawsuit, but it's not fair use. There's a whole set of tests to determine fair use, but the general rules are: 1) Is the use commerical or educational? 2) Is the use in the context of criticism, news reporting, commenting, research, etc.? 3) Is the use "transformative"? 4) Is the original work worthy of copyright protection? 5) How much of the work is used? 6) What is the impact of the use on the marketability of the original? In the case of this story, the answers are "commerical, no, no, yes, no very much, and potential positive". Which is not a particularly strong "fair use" position.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Greg Hittelman, 11 Jun 2004 @ 1:40pm

    Killing Fields of Culture

    Hi Mike -

    It's exciting to feel all reverberations from our little act of media rebellion. The movie referred to in JD Lasica's article is "Willful Infringement" -- and since we came out of the editing room, the movie's been playing all over the country at universities, law schools, libraries, film fests, cultural events, arthouse movie theaters, etc.

    Thanks for helping us sound the alarm about
    the damage that corporate copyright abuse is doing to free speech, cultural democracy, and artistic freedom.

    Best regards,
    Greg Hittelman
    director, Willful Infringement

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.