Things You Don't See Every Day: MPAA Argues For Fair Use In Court

from the say-what-now? dept

April Fool's Day has already passed, so it appears this is legit. Yes, the MPAA has jumped into a court case to argue in favor of fair use. A few years ago, we wrote about the fact that there are actually lawyers whose main job is to watch movies to make sure every single thing that's in there that might be covered by trademark or copyright is licensed. This leads to some crazy situations, such as the re-release of Titanic requiring a new license to show some of the paintings hanging in the film.

But what happens when a work in a film is infringing? Well, that's the case at hand here. Apparently, the Baltimore Ravens football team used a logo designed by a fan for a few years, violating his copyright. The court ruled against the team, but also didn't give the artist any money, since it noted that any profits from the team had nothing to do with the logo.
The artist, Frederick Bouchat, has continued to sue, trying to find creative ways to get some cash. Here's THREsq summarizing the recent lawsuits and the result:
Then, in 2008, Bouchat sued the NFL and the Baltimore Ravens again. This time, he objected to use of the old infringing logo in highlight films, on the stadium's display of old players and memorabilia. Then, a few years after that, he sued yet another time over use of the logo in documentary videos, in pictures on the stadium wall and in the Madden NFL football game, which allows users to compete with throwback uniforms.

Last November, a federal judge declared most of the uses -- including in NFL television series and documentaries such as one that featured the player draft -- to be covered as "fair use." The judge factored in the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work. The only use that fell outside of fair use was the way in which Bouchat's logo was incorporated into a video game.
Bouchat appealed. And suddenly, the MPAA woke up and realized that fair use matters to the MPAA too. If the ruling goes in favor of Bouchat, suddenly many, many movies may be on the hook for things that happened to show up in movies that weren't properly licensed. And then, the very same MPAA, who has worked hard to limit fair use around the globe, wouldn't be very happy. So it actually had some Stanford fair use lawyers (who aren't often on the same page as the MPAA) help it draft an amicus brief explaining why fair use is important.
Bouchat asks this court to adopt a rule that would depart from well established precedent and would have the potential to interfere with important speech and expression rights. Bouchat seeks nothing less than a de facto right to control the depiction of facts—in this case, events that actually happened on the football field—simply because those facts include the fact that the players wore uniforms that include Bouchat’s copyrighted logo. It is antithetical to the purposes of copyright to use it to force an inaccurate depiction of actual events.

The potential impact of Bouchat’s claims is not limited to the Baltimore Ravens or the NFL. Many historical subjects cannot be discussed effectively without the use of copyrighted material. It would be difficult, for example, to make an effective biography of an actor without including audiovisual clips depicting his work, in order, for example, to illustrate a point about his career and impact, Hofheinz v. A & E Television Networks, 146 F.Supp.2d 442, 446–47 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (finding transformative film footage used for the purpose of enabling the viewer to understand the actor Peter Graves’ modest beginnings in the film business), or to create a comprehensive study of surrealist art without including works by Salvador Dali, to accompany the author’s commentary, see Warren Publ’g Co. v. Spurlock, 645 F.Supp.2d 402, 419 (E.D. Pa. 2009). It would be nearly impossible to document any sliver of life in a major American city without capturing vast numbers of logos, signs, billboards, and other copyrighted works along the way. Cf. ESS Entm’t 2000 v. Rock Star Videos, 547 F. 3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Possibly the only way, and certainly a reasonable way, to” recreate “look and feel” of city was “to recreate a critical mass of the businesses and buildings that constitute it,” even if protected by trademark). It would be similarly impossible to make a documentary about the healthfulness of McDonald’s food (Super Size Me) or Wal-Mart’s business practices (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price) without depicting each company’s logo.

Bouchat asks this Court to set forth a rule that would require permission for uses like these. That rule would have a profoundly negative impact on free speech and expression because rights-holders would demand some control over the way individuals or organizations are portrayed, or simply choose to prohibit unflattering or disfavored depictions.
Funny, isn't it, that this is the very same MPAA who insists that nothing about copyright law can be construed to be a limit on free speech. Well, until it's the free speech of the MPAA's studio members, I guess.

Not surprisingly, I actually agree strongly with the MPAA (who thought they'd ever see that come out of me?) that this should be fair use. I just find it funny to see the MPAA making such an argument.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    weneedhelp (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 8:51am

    who thought they'd ever see that come out of me?

    The world... has ended.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      gorehound (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 10:29am

      Re: who thought they'd ever see that come out of me?

      They only do what they feel is in their best interest so this all makes sense.
      MPAA is still the Enemy ! Do not be fooled by their propaganda.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 10:35am

      Re: who thought they'd ever see that come out of me?

      I'll be stockpiling supplies for the zombie apocalypse that is sure to come after this.

       

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

  •  
    icon
    dennis deems (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:01am

    You just blew our minds! Our minds have been blown!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Bob Buttons, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:13am

    Could We Quote Them?

    So if the MPAA takes someone to court over clips of videos (or the like) can we quote them as saying "It would be difficult, for example, to make an effective biography of an actor without including audiovisual clips depicting his work, in order, for example, to illustrate a point about his career and impact"?

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      PRMan, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:39am

      Re: Could We Quote Them?

      Typically, yes. Since it is their organization that said it in a court case, and they said it in a generic manner, it's going to be very difficult for them to say otherwise later.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Yakko Warner (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:46am

        Re: Re: Could We Quote Them?

        ...it's going to be very difficult for them to say otherwise later.

        Really? Think who you're talking about here.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      Phillip (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:47am

      Re: Could We Quote Them?

      surprised they actually realized this can hurt them as well, but very glad they did. Hopefully, if they win this will help others in their fair use claims as well.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Beech, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:15am

    So what if I have someone document me going to a theatre and watching a movie. Would that be fair use as described by the MPAA, since it would be a " depiction of facts—in this case, events that actually happened in the movie theatre" and they would have no reason to complain "simply because those facts include the fact that the person being filmed did some activities that included the MPAA's copyrighted movie"?

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Ed C., Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:25am

      Re:

      Even though I think you're being sarcastic, there's still a legitimate point. The answer depends upon the focus of the documentary. If it was primarily focused on the screen for the purpose of reproducing the film, it would be infringement, if it was primarily focused on you while you watch the film, it should be fair use. The theater would probably still try to kick you out, or even call the cops, and the MPAA would try to claim infringement over every barely distinguishable sound from the movie in the background.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Beech, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 11:52am

        Re: Re:

        I was kind of envisioning the camera behind me over my shoulder so the screen is still mostly to totally visible, Mystery Science Theater 3000 style. I'm assuming an important part of the "Beech watches an entire movie" scene would be watching how I react to various things that happen on screen. Having a camera in front of me showing only my face would lose part of the message, I feel.

         

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

    •  
      icon
      AndyD273 (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 12:01pm

      Re:

      I heard an interesting point about fair use the other day, which is that a lot of things are fair use, but that being fair use doesn't mean you won't get sued. Fair use just means that if you get sued, you have a legitimate leg to stand on in court so you hopefully wont lose everything.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Ed C., Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:15am

    People need to use this to their advantage. The next time the MPAA disses legitimate fair use claims from others, or simply tries to pretend fair use doesn't even exist, just point them to this.

    Fan art can be seen as part of the collective culture, and the Ravens would seem to agree since they had someone make a slightly different version in color, but how aggressive was the Ravens or the NFL in enforcing copyright and trademark licensing of their version?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:16am

    seems my initial suspicion was correct. there was no way that a branch of the entertainment industries in any form would argue in favour of this unless it was going to be to it's advantage. obviously the case here. these industries are the only ones i have seen that can change their minds to suit a situation more often than i change my socks! what i find totally amazing though is that no court ever calls these industries out over the way they keep changing their stance. it's very much like the revolving door that exists between working for the government then working for a branch of those industries, continuously on the move!

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:16am

    seems my initial suspicion was correct. there was no way that a branch of the entertainment industries in any form would argue in favour of this unless it was going to be to it's advantage. obviously the case here. these industries are the only ones i have seen that can change their minds to suit a situation more often than i change my socks! what i find totally amazing though is that no court ever calls these industries out over the way they keep changing their stance. it's very much like the revolving door that exists between working for the government then working for a branch of those industries, continuously on the move!

     

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

    •  
      icon
      nasch (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 1:30pm

      Re:

      there was no way that a branch of the entertainment industries in any form would argue in favour of this unless it was going to be to it's advantage.

      The more general (and still correct) form of this is: there was no way that a branch of any industry in any form would argue in favour of anything unless it was going to be to its advantage.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:20am

    Interesting that they are arguing against fair use, when they are amongst those that have done their best to destroy fair use. Are they realising that the license everything approach is almost impossible to carry out in practice?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:22am

    Fair use does not apply to normal people, only the rich get fair use.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:30am

    Not even remotely fair use, they should pay

    Funny, this was to me an obvious instance where fair use should not apply in any way shape or form.

    It seems a clear cut case of using someone's creative willfully to your own financial advantage. If they had not used this logo they would at the very least have had to have forked out to some design company at some ludicrous fee.

    This is precisely the sort of instance where fair use should not apply.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Michael, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:43am

      Re: Not even remotely fair use, they should pay

      This is not about the team using the logo. The ravens already lost the case as having violated the copyright.

      The current case is about documentary films that show the logo.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Ben S (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:56am

      Re: Not even remotely fair use, they should pay

      For putting the logo on the uniforms yes, but not for things like a documentary which happens to show the logo they put on the uniforms. Same with the pictures on the stadium wall, as that's showing their history (even if it is one that includes copyright infringement). I could certainly see a potential argument regarding the video game though, as that isn't about documenting anything historically, but rather just a "retro" uniform that isn't needed to play the game.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 10:19am

        Re: Re: Not even remotely fair use, they should pay

        Even in the case of a documentary, if it functions as a piece of advertising. If a third party was making a documentary, but the NFL is not a third party.

        A documentary by them about one of their teams is more like an extended advertisement than a public information piece.

         

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:34am

    Profits from the team have nothing to do with the logo

    Has the judge never heard of an NFL jersey?

    If the team's profits have nothing to do with the logo, offer the team a settlement where they can either pay $1-5 million or change their logo. They can decide which is cheaper. I for one am willing to bet that even if their profits have nothing to do with the logo, they'd still pay because of all the marketing and everything else they do with their logo.

    If there was really no profit in a logo to the team, they'd be willing to change it.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Chosen Reject (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 10:15am

      Re: Profits from the team have nothing to do with the logo

      They did change it. I can't say whether they changed it because of this lawsuit, but their current logo is nothing like the one created by Frederick Bouchat. Teams change their logos regularly. I'm sure had they been given the choice to pay even one million dollars or change their logo, they would have just changed their logo. It'd give them an opportunity to refresh the team, make it look new and exciting, etc.

      Here's a brief history of NFL team logos. The Detroit Lions have change their logo twice in the last 10 years, Broncos have changed their logo twice in 20 years, and there's more. Some teams change more often than others, and some only make minor changes, but they all make changes (except the Jaguars, but they're young).

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 10:23am

        Re: Re: Profits from the team have nothing to do with the logo

        Changing the logo of the sports team is actually extremely profitable. It's basically like making a new model of the iPhone, everyone runs out and buys brand new jerseys that have the "new" logo.

         

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

      •  
        icon
        btr1701 (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 1:03pm

        Re: Re: Profits from the team have nothing to do with the logo

        > I'm sure had they been given the choice
        > to pay even one million dollars or change
        > their logo, they would have just changed
        > their logo. It'd give them an opportunity
        > to refresh the team, make it look new and
        > exciting, etc.

        Not to mention, they get to resell merchandise to every fan who already has the old stuff. Who wants to be the fan wearing yesterday's logo to the game?

         

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

        •  
          icon
          Niall (profile), Apr 11th, 2013 @ 4:54am

          Re: Re: Re: Profits from the team have nothing to do with the logo

          So it's really a case of Yesterday's Enterprise leading to All Good Things...?

           

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

  •  
    identicon
    [citation needed or GTFO], Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:37am

    A new precedent?

    Depending on how this case turns out, will it set a new precedent for future fair use cases?

    Or will it just be one of those "MPAA won, now let's pretend fair use doesn't exist" type deals?

     

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:39am

    Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.

    If not self-blinded by your anti-copyright mania, you'd see that even the MPAA is sometimes right.

    A stopped clock is right twice a day, but by constant effort Mike manages to be wrong far more often than the basic 50% chance.

     

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:44am

      Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.

      If not self-blinded by your anti-Mike mania, you'd see that even Mike is sometimes right.

      A stopped clock is right twice a day, but by constant effort OOTB manages to be wrong more often than the basic 50% chance.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      AC Unknown, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:46am

      Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.

      And you're wrong more often than Mike is, OOTB. What is the major malfunction in your brain housing group that compels you to go to a site you hate and attack its creator endlessly?

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 11:20am

        Re: Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.

        You mean there was a time that OOTB was right?

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 2:29pm

          Re: Re: Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.

          Scary, isn't it?

           

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

        •  
          icon
          PaulT (profile), Apr 11th, 2013 @ 12:53am

          Re: Re: Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.

          He occasionally has a valid point nestled somewhere inside his childish attacks and moronic ramblings. He manages to destroy whatever validity exists through his behaviour and inability to participate in an adult conversation, but the nuggets are occasionally (rarely) visible.

           

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:51am

      Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.

      So being correct for 2 seconds a day is acceptable, but a sub 50% average is not?

      There is something going on in that head of yours, but i don't think you know what.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Ninja (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 10:02am

      Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.

      I was wondering if the troll brains would be all scattered around techdirt virtual lounge to see any trollish comment but it seems the troll is strong in you indeed my little trolliwan!

      Other than that it's the usual point missed. It's getting old ootb you need to reinvent your trolling or you risk being suplanted by aj or bob. You wouldn't want to lose right?

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 10:07am

      Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.

      "If not self-blinded by your anti-copyright mania, you'd see that even the MPAA is sometimes right."

      If not self blinded by your anti-fair use mania, you'd see that even Mike is sometimes right, boy.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      Just Another Artist, Apr 11th, 2013 @ 10:48pm

      Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.

      So do you agree that anyone who creates something automatically has the absolute right to determine how their work is copied/distributed/used or don't you?

       

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

      •  
        icon
        nasch (profile), Apr 12th, 2013 @ 6:22am

        Re: Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.

        So do you agree that anyone who creates something automatically has the absolute right to determine how their work is copied/distributed/used or don't you?

        I'm not who you're asking, but I definitely don't agree with that. And in the US at least, it's empirically false. Fair use, if nothing else, means the creator does not have an absolute right of copying and distribution. And he certainly has no control whatsoever over how the work is used.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          Just Another Artist, Apr 12th, 2013 @ 11:32pm

          Re: Re: Re: Surprise due only to your constant demonizing.

          Yeah the question is for out_of_the_blue who seems to be implying that Mike is correct, meaning he too supports fair use. I just want him to clarify that.

           

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:43am

    Funny, isn't it, that this is the very same MPAA who insists that nothing about copyright law can be construed to be a limit on free speech. Well, until it's the free speech of the MPAA's studio members, I guess.

    Wow. That's quite the straw man. The MPAA relies heavily on fair use. Give me a break with this constant hating and demonization.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      silverscarcat (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:47am

      Re:

      Yes, the MPAA does...

      But if they take you to court and you try to use Fair Use as a defense, they suddenly say "it's not a legitimate defense".

       

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

    •  
      icon
      Yakko Warner (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:50am

      Re:

      No straw man; that's actually the whole point. The MPAA relies heavily on fair use for their own work, but actively fights having their work subjected to fair use.

       

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

    •  
      identicon
      JEDIDIAH, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 9:51am

      Sometimes even Stalin is on your side.

      They are a bunch of flaming hypocrites. Much like you they want all rights for themselves and not rights for everyone else. They will fight to their last breath against something until it's in their interest to change their tune.

      They have no scruples, no morals, no principles. They are a like a bunch of toddlers. What's theirs is theirs and what's yours is theirs.

      There's really no point in sugar coating it.

      They steal from actors. They steal from producers. They steal from writers. They fled to Hollywood to be IP scofflaws to begin with.

       

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

      •  
        icon
        Niall (profile), Apr 11th, 2013 @ 4:57am

        Re: Sometimes even Stalin is on your side.

        Without Stalin, the US wouldn't have been able to win the war. And the Brits would be speaking... English still ;)

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 10:08am

      Re:

      "The MPAA relies heavily on fair use."

      For it's own profit, boy.
      But if anyone else does the same thing, they freak out.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 11:35am

        Re: Re:

        "Boy"? Really? That's just creepy that you use that term. Makes you sound like an old Southern slave-driver.

         

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

        •  
          icon
          AzureSky (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 12:43pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          nice ad-hom......little note for you, my great grandfather used the term "boy" alot, he had never lived in the south, infact he was born and raised here in the northwest, he used the term boy when referring to younger males AND even males his own age who refused to grow up.

          seems to fit you well, boy.

           

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

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 1:53pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          ""Boy"? Really? That's just creepy that you use that term. Makes you sound like an old Southern slave-driver."

          Nope.
          I'm referring to your apparent immaturity and lack of judgement, boy.
          I'm a Brooklynite, born and raised (Kings Highway and Ocean Parkway, to be exact)
          And the fact you equate it with Southerners and slavery gives us an idea of your biases...

           

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

          •  
            icon
            Niall (profile), Apr 11th, 2013 @ 4:59am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            To be fair to him, as a non-American I 'hear' that 'boy' in some sort of Texan/Southern drawl as a result of endless media overuse of it. Good to hear it lives on in the North though!

             

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

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 10:10am

      Re:

      Give me a break with this constant hating and demonization.

      After them.

       

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

    •  
      icon
      techflaws (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 10:27am

      Re:

      Swoosh!

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    DJ 0px 0px 7px #888, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 10:00am

    so i can sample again?

    i mean if films can sample art (logos, packaging) then i can sample art (music, films)? Thats right isn't it ootb?

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 10:03am

    While I agree with the MPAA this time, the fact that they flip flop around so much, I want this ruling to be in favor of Bouchat. I want this to snowball on the MPAA so it causes all their copyright efforts to cripple their industry. Of course after all the damage is caused, then copyright could then be pulled back to something sensible. As long as they think they can get wiggle room in the laws to stay out of the mess they cause for everyone else, they are only encouraged to make stricter copyright laws, and just apply carefully crafted exceptions to themselves.

     

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

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 10:29am

    Lol we need to save this when the MPAA comes back and argues against fair use again.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 10:31am

    Oh my fricken god. I was in law school in Baltimore back when this guy first starting suing. It was all anyone talked about for a while. I can't believe he's still at it.

    Dude, you drew one thing. It was sort of cool. Now do the world a favor and get a real job.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      AzureSky (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 12:47pm

      Re:

      but,but,but....that would go against the american way, to create once and have a perpetual stream of income from it.....or at least thats what the likes of OOTB and BoB and such want....

      I do agree with you....hell, I know people who are artists who would agree with you....gotta keep creating and working to keep getting paid.....but then again, every artist I know whos made money off their art also worked other jobs and understand that they need to keep working/creating to keep getting money.

       

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

  •  
    identicon
    Julian Perez, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 10:44am

    Not surprising, look who wrote the

    The Motion of Curiae above was written by Tim Greene (not the creepy plant baby) and Julie Ahrens. Both are attorneys from the Stanford Center for Internet and Society, which emphasizes the importance of fair use in order to balance needs of copyright holders vs. freedom of expression.

    These aren't hypocrite maximalists changing their tune, but tireless advocates for Fair Use and have been for years. Heck, Julie Ahrens even penned some anti-SOPA articles and a few arguing against bogus copyright claims. I can't believe the MPAA even speaks to her after that.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 10:55am

    Not too surprising

    They aren't arguing for fair use, they're arguing for their own best interests, and it just so happens to include fair use this time around.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 11:02am

    Frederick Bouchat For The Win ....

    I hope Frederick Bouchat does win this case. The repercussions of a win would be the MPAA and the RIAA lobbying for more fair use.

    They wouldn't want the descendants of the descendants going after them because an actor read a few lines from a book, or an old movie played on a TV screen, or some music from the 1930's was used in a movie.

    Then there is the serious issue of the never being able to extend copyright again. The instant copyright was extended, they would have to pay royalties on all the public domain content falling back under copyright.

    What a nightmare. :)
    I hope he wins.

     

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

    •  
      icon
      Avatar28 (profile), Apr 10th, 2013 @ 11:16am

      Re: Frederick Bouchat For The Win ....

      I disagree. Much as I don't like the MPAA, a win for Bouchat would be a blow to fair use via the precedent. If Bouchat loses then we have a precedent supporting fair use that can then be used in other court cases (assuming the court buys that argument, of course).

      Precedent supporting fair use > a loss to the MPAA.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 3:45pm

        Re: Re: Frederick Bouchat For The Win ....

        True, but such a precedent would force the MPAA into using its prodigious lobbying power to get better statutory support for fair use. Many heads would explode.

         

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

    •  
      identicon
      [citation needed or GTFO], Apr 10th, 2013 @ 4:07pm

      Re: Frederick Bouchat For The Win ....

      2-to-1 chance that this gets settled out of court or the case is dropped and no one will be the wiser.

       

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

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Anonymous Coward, Apr 10th, 2013 @ 7:50pm

        Re: Re: Frederick Bouchat For The Win ....

        " no one will be the wiser"

        Cat's already out of the bag. The brief has been filed and there for all posterity. This can now be used regardless of the outcome of this case. They will have a hard time backing down from this position that they have already taken, publicly.

         

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

        •  
          identicon
          [citation needed or GTFO], Apr 10th, 2013 @ 11:21pm

          Re: Re: Re: Frederick Bouchat For The Win ....

          You never know. They could downplay it until it fades away into obscurity or pull a Prenda and deny they had any involvement with the decision, blaming it on their PR. They could even come up with the whole "you're taking what we said out of context, this is what we really meant" route. I wouldn't put it past them.

           

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

  •  
    icon
    ByteMaster (profile), Apr 11th, 2013 @ 10:01am

    Simple.

    It's very simple... YOU wouldn't be able to make any money off your creation, or nothing more than pocket change, so MPAA claims fair use.

    The MPAA on the other hand can make tons of money with their creations, so any use by you is copyright infringement.

    And All Was Well In Dodd-land.

     

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

  •  
    icon
    Anonymous Monkey (profile), Apr 11th, 2013 @ 10:03am

    Twilight Zone

    "I actually agree strongly with the MPAA..."


    The world has.gone.mad. O_O

     

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This