The fine line between fanworks and copyright infrigments
(Originally posted by me, A.M. on 12th of Aug 2007 at 10:02 (UTC) in a response to Ariel Lindt`s problem and now edited to be an independent posting.)
Okay, yes, in a sense everyone who uses the original Potter-film made by Warner Bros.i in his or her HP-fanvids, does commit a certain levelled copyright infrigment. But on the other hand, it`s a FANWORK - targeted clearly to a certain kind of group of people - those who share the same fandom, just as any other form of fanworks (e.g. fanart, fanfics, etc...). Usually people solve this legal problem by stating in a disclaimer that the characters, music, original clipses of the used films aren`t fanwork creator`s official property and has been used in purpose of a fanwork and fan(-based) entertainment (In this case the question is about a fanvid or a group of fanvids.) without any profit and the creators state in the author`s/artist`s note, that they`re not making money with their piece of creation - noting that the original rights to the characters, films, etc. they`ve used, still belongs to their original copyright holders.
I do not encourage anybody to commit any kind of criminal action, but fanvids are a form of a fanworks - just as fanart and fan fiction too, and during all the years I`ve surfed throught the Internet, I`ve never really bumped to a case that a fanartist or a fanfiction writer would have been chased too horrendously just because they made a their fanbased stuff and proclaimed clearly that their creative work was theirs but everything else was borrowed. It`s all after all free advertisement for the original product - and the filmers, authors, etc... know the power of "grass-root levelled advertisement" aka. "fan-to-fan advertisements". The only case I know Warner Brothers went seriously raging after a fan, was with a small children`s cartoon serie where this "fan" had made truly cruel and absolutely outraged violence to the characters which could have harmed the image of the company behind the original serie. None of the HP-vids I`ve seen in YouTube so far (and there`s loads of `em) - slash or het, doesn`t matter - reaches to that level.
So, in a nutshell, fanvids do belong in my non-professional opinion to the same group of fanworks along with fanart and fanfics. The key thing and the marking line between fanwork and true copyright infrigment is that from a copyright infrigment the person behind it benefits (usually in financial way, eg. pirating movies & cds), while fanworker makes it out of pure entertainment and love for the original stuff and clearly states what`s his/her part of the work and what`s borrowed and credits (which at the same time can be seen as a sort of advertisement too) the original work.
Copyright infrigmentor takes all the credits for him-/herself, without telling the truth about the borrowed issues.
Okay, yes, in a sense everyone who uses the original Potter-film made by Warner Bros.i in his or her HP-fanvids, does commit a certain levelled copyright infrigment. But on the other hand, it`s a FANWORK - targeted clearly to a certain kind of group of people - those who share the same fandom, just as any other form of fanworks (e.g. fanart, fanfics, etc...). Usually people solve this legal problem by stating in a disclaimer that the characters, music, original clipses of the used films aren`t fanwork creator`s official property and has been used in purpose of a fanwork and fan(-based) entertainment (In this case the question is about a fanvid or a group of fanvids.) without any profit and the creators state in the author`s/artist`s note, that they`re not making money with their piece of creation - noting that the original rights to the characters, films, etc. they`ve used, still belongs to their original copyright holders.
I do not encourage anybody to commit any kind of criminal action, but fanvids are a form of a fanworks - just as fanart and fan fiction too, and during all the years I`ve surfed throught the Internet, I`ve never really bumped to a case that a fanartist or a fanfiction writer would have been chased too horrendously just because they made a their fanbased stuff and proclaimed clearly that their creative work was theirs but everything else was borrowed. It`s all after all free advertisement for the original product - and the filmers, authors, etc... know the power of "grass-root levelled advertisement" aka. "fan-to-fan advertisements". The only case I know Warner Brothers went seriously raging after a fan, was with a small children`s cartoon serie where this "fan" had made truly cruel and absolutely outraged violence to the characters which could have harmed the image of the company behind the original serie. None of the HP-vids I`ve seen in YouTube so far (and there`s loads of `em) - slash or het, doesn`t matter - reaches to that level.
So, in a nutshell, fanvids do belong in my non-professional opinion to the same group of fanworks along with fanart and fanfics. The key thing and the marking line between fanwork and true copyright infrigment is that from a copyright infrigment the person behind it benefits (usually in financial way, eg. pirating movies & cds), while fanworker makes it out of pure entertainment and love for the original stuff and clearly states what`s his/her part of the work and what`s borrowed and credits (which at the same time can be seen as a sort of advertisement too) the original work.
Copyright infrigmentor takes all the credits for him-/herself, without telling the truth about the borrowed issues.