Fair Use Tale Trial Analysis

The video A Fair(y) Use Tale Trial by Professor Eric Faden was created with the purpose of educating it’s viewers about Fair Use principles. It creates a transformative work through different Disney movie clips each only a few seconds long strung together in order to explain Fair Use and Copyright in an entertaining and original way. The video is noncommercial, and no profit was gained by Professor Faden in producing the work or after it was displayed.

The Mickey Mouse Monopoly documentary reveals the obscure social messages behind the animated films created by the Disney Company. Although we are conditioned to believe that these movies are pure forms of entertainment, further examination has proved that there are hidden messages concerning gender, race and class that Disney is instilling in the minds of children. The speakers in the documentary argue that Disney is extremely political and hides its ideas behind innocence, magic and fun. When masked by features that are appealing to a younger audience, it is difficult to realize these ideas without taking a closer look.

With endless copyright laws and fine lines of right and wrong Eric Faden created a video using short clips from disney animation studios to test the limits of fair use. Walt disney studios is known for suing schools, churches , and public libraries for broadcasting their movies and animations without permission(which is never given). Once again disney has proved their reputation by by filing a lawsuit against eric faden whom abided by the copyright rules. I can only imagine Disney’s lawyers heads spinning off as they watched the “movie”.

Throughout the video Faden uses a wide variety of clips from different Disney but he never uses more than he needs to. The University of Maryland University College’s guidelines for how much of a copyrighted work you can use include only using the amount you need, and not exceeding the expectation of how much you can use. Faden demonstrates this by using only what he needs to get his point

Fair use, a well-established doctrine of copyright law, is explicitly stated in Title 17, Section 107 of the U.S. Code. It protects copying “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.” Also very relevant to the issues raised by this lawsuit is the final

In this paper, I will be analyzing an artifact and explaining how it relates to the course theme of “Rhetoric of Information”. The artifact which I have selected is the movie Summer Magic, which was produced by Walt Disney and it basically focuses on the topic of femininity. I found this artifact one day when I was searching for the movies and I thought that it is a movie that I have seen before. It was actually a Disney movie which was released in 1963.

A motion for summary judgment is granted when the similarities concern only non-copyrightable elements of an allegedly infringed work or when no reasonable trier of fact could find the works substantially similar. Boisson v. Banian, Ltd., 273 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2001); Castle Rock Entm 't, Inc. v. Carol Publ 'g Grp., Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998); Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 1996); Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44 (2d Cir 1986). When the works contain protectable and unprotectable elements, the court applies a more discerning test, extracting the unprotectable elements from the works and asking whether the protectable elements, standing alone, are substantially similar. Knitwaves Inc. Lollytogs Ltd., 71 F.3d 996 (2d Cir. 1995) The discerning ordinary observer test must be applied in conjunction with the total concept and feel after the unprotectable elements are eliminated from consideration. Boisson, 273 F.3d 273. An allegedly infringing work is considered substantially similar to a copyrighted work if the ordinary lay observer unless he set out to detect the disparities, would regard the two works appeal as the same. Boisson 273 F.3d 273; Knitwaves, 71 F.3d 996. In determining whether or not the allegedly infringing work falls below the quantitative

The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including

The second approach to copyright is the democratic approach. All works of art are ideas built on a foundation of other ideas. The democratic approach advocates that intellectual property belongs to the society and should be available for the general good of the public. If the particular usage is intended to derive financial benefit or any other business-related benefits, it is considered inappropriate usage. If the utilization of factual work were more usable than the use of someone’s creative work, then that would not be fair use. There is no specified edge to the amount of quoted work that can be called “fair use.” The courts exercise common sense to determine if it was too much. If the utilization of the material created market or stirred a competition, and if the fair use diminishes demand for the original product, it is not considered as appropriate use (Crews, 1993).

Faden used clips that were 30 seconds or less when explaining copyright, and the sustainability of his use was very short but delivered the message clearly. The original Disney works are unique, but courts have held that that factor isn’t as important when the second work is transformative.

According to Intellectual Property Quotes (n.d.), “While American intellectual property deserves protection, that protection must be won and defended in a manner that does not stifle innovation, erode due process under the law, and weaken the protection of political and civil rights on the Internet” (Intellectual Property Quotes, n.d.). In this paper I will discuss the facts and legal reasoning of this case, what the Fair Use Doctrine is, and will answer the following: why it is important to protect intellectual property, why it is important for society to have access to intellectual property, and whether the Fair Use Doctrine properly balances the rights of content producers against the public good.

The court first answered Towle’s original argument that the Batmobile is not copyrightable as it appears in not only the television series and the motion picture by using the case New Line v. Bertlesman Music Group. In this case, it is argued that Zomba, a musican, has infringed New Line’s copyright on the “A Nightmare on Elm Street” in the music video “ A Nightmare on My Street.” Bertlesman Music Group represents Zomba in this case (law.justia.com, para 1). This case acts as a precedent for DC Comics v Towle, because the music video was not related to the film series yet featured a character that was

Copyright and fair use can be hard to talk about because when you use a video with copyright songs you can't see it. Fair use belief that not all copying should be banned, particularly in socially important endeavors such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research. Although the doctrine of fair use was originally created by the judiciary, it is now set forth in the Copyright Act. Under the Act, four factors are to be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be considered a "fair use."

Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement that essentially asks of any particular use; Is this fair?

Many infringement claims involve simple cases of copyright infringement where the copying is obvious. Others, however, are more difficult to resolve because copyright protection is not limited to exact copying. It is inevitable that creative and commercial works will take inspiration from the culture at large, and it is often challenging to determine when this "inspiration" has crossed the line into infringement. There also may be a question of whether the allegedly infringed work is even protected by copyright. Unprotected works may include, for example, compilations of facts that lack the requisite creativity to be covered by copyright, or those works that are in the public domain because the copyright term expired.