Did Viacom Just Deem Mash-Ups Fair Use?
The New York Times seems to say so, but they may also be putting words in to the spokesperson's mouth.
Here's a bit from their article about the fact that Disney hasn't asked YouTube to remove a video that incorporates Disney characters, rapping:
Nickelodeon, part of Viacom, sees the humorous videos as fair use of its copyrighted content. “Our audiences can creatively mash video from our content as much and as often as they like,” said Dan Martinsen, a Nickelodeon spokesman. “By the way,” he added, “that was a very nice edit job by whoever did the SpongeBob mash.” (That laissez-faire reaction, it should be noted, comes from a company whose corporate parent has a $1 billion piracy lawsuit pending against Google, the owner of YouTube.)
The reporter writes that Nick sees humorous videos as fair use, but the Nick VP-spokesman is, at least, affirmatively saying that people "can creatively mash video from our content as much and as often as they like."
Wow.
Wow and double-wow, was my first thought.
That statement is both broader, and more narrow, than the reporter's statement that Nick, if not all of Viacom, sees fan-made "humorous videos as fair use of its copyrighted content".
It's broader because it includes all videos that are mashes (see definitions below), not just humorous ones. It's narrower because it's an implied license, not necessarily "fair use", so if it was true fair use, then the potential uses would be broader.
It leads me to wonder a few things based on Mr Martinsen's statement:
1. Clearly, "as much and as often" includes "even if a third party gets advertising revenue from it" as he's speaking specifically about videos on YouTube. But what if the masher accrued advertising revenue? What if she or he sold a DVD with the content on it?
2. And what if the DMCA had to be violated to obtain the content that was used in the mash? The DMCA bars cracking encryptions, including DVD encryption - so it seems it's fine if you just pull it onto a dvd or jump drive right off the tv, but what if you want to use content that's only available on a commercial DVD, like a Gag Reel or a Deleted Scene? Is Nick - is all of Viacom - okay with that?
In other words, we don't know just how broadly vidders - and other creative types who transform others' copyrighted works - really have the right/license/whatever to "creatively mash ... content" but it seems that it's at least a little safer to be a vidder in a Viacom-owned 'verse in 2007 than, say, a vendor at a con for a Viacom-owned 'verse in 2002.
Oh - definitions! If one ever ended up in court against Viacom about this sort of issue, definitions would be deemed evidence, and things like the current Wikipedia pages involving and defining mashes would be useful - today, the page says the following:
[A] video mashup is the combination of multiple sources of video-which usually have no relevance with each other-into a derivative work often lampooning its component sources, or another text.
[Mashups are created when] videos from multiple sources are edited together into a new video. To date, many of these video mashups have been parodies, but even music mashups are being integrated to make combined audio-visual mashups.
ETA: Oh, I don't necessarily want to crosspost this on vidding comms if it's not appropriate, but I would love to get some perspective from vidders - with and without legal background/knowledge - so if this could be included in newsletters or posted about on comms on and off LJ, that would be terrific.
Here's a bit from their article about the fact that Disney hasn't asked YouTube to remove a video that incorporates Disney characters, rapping:
Nickelodeon, part of Viacom, sees the humorous videos as fair use of its copyrighted content. “Our audiences can creatively mash video from our content as much and as often as they like,” said Dan Martinsen, a Nickelodeon spokesman. “By the way,” he added, “that was a very nice edit job by whoever did the SpongeBob mash.” (That laissez-faire reaction, it should be noted, comes from a company whose corporate parent has a $1 billion piracy lawsuit pending against Google, the owner of YouTube.)
The reporter writes that Nick sees humorous videos as fair use, but the Nick VP-spokesman is, at least, affirmatively saying that people "can creatively mash video from our content as much and as often as they like."
Wow.
Wow and double-wow, was my first thought.
That statement is both broader, and more narrow, than the reporter's statement that Nick, if not all of Viacom, sees fan-made "humorous videos as fair use of its copyrighted content".
It's broader because it includes all videos that are mashes (see definitions below), not just humorous ones. It's narrower because it's an implied license, not necessarily "fair use", so if it was true fair use, then the potential uses would be broader.
It leads me to wonder a few things based on Mr Martinsen's statement:
1. Clearly, "as much and as often" includes "even if a third party gets advertising revenue from it" as he's speaking specifically about videos on YouTube. But what if the masher accrued advertising revenue? What if she or he sold a DVD with the content on it?
2. And what if the DMCA had to be violated to obtain the content that was used in the mash? The DMCA bars cracking encryptions, including DVD encryption - so it seems it's fine if you just pull it onto a dvd or jump drive right off the tv, but what if you want to use content that's only available on a commercial DVD, like a Gag Reel or a Deleted Scene? Is Nick - is all of Viacom - okay with that?
In other words, we don't know just how broadly vidders - and other creative types who transform others' copyrighted works - really have the right/license/whatever to "creatively mash ... content" but it seems that it's at least a little safer to be a vidder in a Viacom-owned 'verse in 2007 than, say, a vendor at a con for a Viacom-owned 'verse in 2002.
Oh - definitions! If one ever ended up in court against Viacom about this sort of issue, definitions would be deemed evidence, and things like the current Wikipedia pages involving and defining mashes would be useful - today, the page says the following:
[A] video mashup is the combination of multiple sources of video-which usually have no relevance with each other-into a derivative work often lampooning its component sources, or another text.
[Mashups are created when] videos from multiple sources are edited together into a new video. To date, many of these video mashups have been parodies, but even music mashups are being integrated to make combined audio-visual mashups.
ETA: Oh, I don't necessarily want to crosspost this on vidding comms if it's not appropriate, but I would love to get some perspective from vidders - with and without legal background/knowledge - so if this could be included in newsletters or posted about on comms on and off LJ, that would be terrific.