Is this video fair use? Why or why not?
If it is, what principles of the Code of Best Practices for Fair Use in Online Videos does the video employ? Does the video adhere to the limitations of the principle(s)? Make a strong argument that it is fair use by citing the Code (principles and limitations) specifically. Explain how the video meets the standards of the Code.
If the video is not fair use, explain why. How does it violate the standards of the Code? How might the video be made fair (or moved into safe harbor)? What changes might be made to make it fair use?
I think this video is unfair use because it does not change the meaning of the original video enough. Unfortunately the question comes up asking what is enough change? This video has the same plot as the original one about the 10 commandments. So practice 6 and 1 play a role in this video being unfair. It doesn't change the voices of the characters, but it is humorous. It doesn't change the words the characters said in the original, it just mixes it up a little bit. It is a critique but it is also an almost identical replica of the original. Unless there's not any copyright material documented on the original movie, I don't think that this new video should be shown. It's plagiarism.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don’t think this video illustrates fair use. In saying so it violates the Code of Best Practices in the limitations section of “Using Copyrighted Material for Illustration or Example. To be exact, the limitations clearly states that “To the extent possible and appropriate, illustrative quotations should be drawn from a range of different sources.” This requirement is violated because only one video is used to illustrate a point. In efforts to make the video fair, the author could add clips from another work in order to meet the standard violated in the limitations section. With that being said, although all other requirements in this section of the Code of Best practices, this one mishap can have drastic consequences.
ReplyDeleteyesk, katrina I do agree with you about eh words not being changed. They say exactly what the characters say in actual movie!
ReplyDeleteI feel this is unfair use because in the Code of Best Practices under #6 limitations it states "if a work is merely reused without significant change of context or meaning, then its reuse goes beyond the limits of fair use." This video does that exactly. It doesn't change the original meaning of the video, they just changed a few little things but not enough. Instead if they would have changed the meaning of the video with the clips that they used then it would be considered fair use.
ReplyDeleteThis video, while it does give a humorous spin instead of a serious one, wouldn't be considered fair use because the meaning of the movie has not been changed to a great extent. The original was about a man giving freedom to his people, who were ruled by the Pharaoh. The video was about a new guy at school who wanted to knock the most popular guy out of his position and change the structure of the school. The meanings for these two are very similar to each other and according to the limitations in code 6 that "if a video is merely reused without significant change to the context of the meaning, then its reuse goes beyond the limits of fair use" this video cannot be supported as fair use.
ReplyDelete@ amber
ReplyDeletethe video is quite humorous, but you're absolutely right, the meaning of the movie is not altered enough to be considered fair use. a lot more thought should have been put into it.
Erika, I agree that too much of one particular video was used for this film. Whereas, there were many different songs that were used, only one video was used and could therefore be seen as an execess use of this material.
ReplyDeleteA video consisting of edited clips from "The Ten Commandments" arranged into the format of any cliche teen comedy movie preview, set to the soundtrack of popular rap music certainly seems like a clash of past meets present. An example is being made, pointing out similar narrative structures found in Hollywood cinema, whether its a classic like "The Ten Commandments" or "Ten Things I Hate About You." Here lies the video's illustrative purpose, making it protected under principle #2 of the Code of Best Practices for Fair Use. This illustration can be taken a step further, and used to generate a thoughtful discussion, covered under principle #5. Who or what created the basic plot structure of the underdog rising to the top and the archetypal characters that support that story? Does this familiar storyline come from the bible or modern-day film and literature? The video's illustrative example which helps generate thoughtful discussion makes it protected under both principle #2 and #5 of the Code of Best Practices and therefore does violate any Copyright laws.
ReplyDeleteThe "10 Things I Hate about Commandments” video takes many elements and combines then to create something similar to the “Bush/Blair” video that we watched previously, but it is not the exact same situation. The copyrighted material in this video consists of many songs, clips from the movie “the Ten Commandments,” a sample of Samuel L. Jackson’s voice from the film "Pulp Fiction," and the title is a play on the film titled "10 Things I Hate about You."
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the best practice rules, this video, much like the “Bush/Blair” video, could possibly fall under categories six and one, but since the film still advertises the movie in such a way the original movie trailer did, I don’t think this creates a new and different enough work to say that it falls under rule six. Although, this video does stick to rule one quite well. This video is a parody of the film “The Ten Commandments.” I gathered that it is making fun of some of the ideas portrayed in the film, the acting, and the overall serious tone of the film. The songs, voice clip, titles, and arrangement as a somewhat cheesy movie trailer are added in to make the arrangement of scenes humorous. Without the extra things, the film clips wouldn’t be a parody at all. It would basically just be a movie trailer. Some examples of this humor are playing Usher to a clip of a serious biblical story or inserting clip of Samuel L. Jackson exclaiming and cursing about a miracle as if he were God from the burning bush. Rule number one states, “Video makers have the right to use as much of the original work as they need to in order to put it under some kind of scrutiny,” with the limitation that “the new use should not become a market substitute for the work (or other works like it).” Knowing that, I believe this film with its songs and clips are being put under a humorous commenting style of scrutiny and I do not think that this video could be marketed in nearly the same way the film "The Ten Commandments" was.
Also, in the credits of the video, the creators posted a disclaimer stating that Paramount Pictures had nothing to do with the parody and gave credit to all of the work used in the video. This is another good way to help ensure that they would not get into trouble for using copyrighted material.
I believe this video is fair use. In practice 2 it states, "It is fair when video makers are not presenting the quoted material for its original purpose but to harness it for a new one. This kind of use is, thus, creating new value." The new value being created is humor. They change the context of things even if they do not change the words. They also give credit to the original makers of the video.
ReplyDelete@ Kat I agree with what you are saying, but the craetor of the video is not in violation of the law, because he can use parts of the movie if he is making a new claim or argument.
ReplyDelete@ Katarina, Erika, and others
ReplyDeleteI do agree that it is not protected under rule six, but under rule #1 the changing of the content is not as important as the commenting or scrutiny the video is being placed under.The film is being parodied and not attempting to be marketed as a new product, so I believe it still may be protected. The video creators are not really trying to claim the actual film clips as their own, so I don't really see it as plagiarism or as breaking copyright.
I think that it is fair because in practice 1 it says it is okay for the video makers to use as much of the original work as they need in order to put it under some kind of scrutiny. Also in practice 6 it says that video makers can use the material again if they are going to switch it up from the original and they do.
ReplyDelete@Ne Ne
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with what you're saying. they are making this a humorous film instead of a serious one.
I personally find this one much harder to tell if it is going against the rules of fair use or not. After watching it a couple of times i personally think that it is unfair use. In the bush blair video they might have been using the same original video but they were able to mash it up with another song to make its a completely different work of art. In this on they do not change anything up from the content but also they do not change the point of the video original make. This video break practice 6 and does not mash up enough to make it a legal practice.
ReplyDelete@ne-ne... how is the new film changed??? It's almost the exact same story plot of the original movie... I don't think it is making a new claim.
ReplyDelete@erika: You're right as well. I don't think it's even a question that this new film created is, by any means, original and not plagiarized. This new film uses the same words, the same characters, the same scenese, and the same plot. Completely in voilation to all plagiarism codes.
This just goes out as a reminder to every post that you can use as much of the original video as long as you change to point of the video being used or your trying to make your own statement to begin with.
ReplyDeleteNe-Ne, I can see where you're coming from when you say that the value of the video was made to be for humor, I thought that myself, but the underlying message of the video is still too similar to the original for me to put it as fair use.
ReplyDeleteJohn I agree with you when you say " that you can use as much of the original video as long as you change to point of the video being used or your trying to make your own statement to begin with." but they didnt change enough,and didnt change the meaning of the original thats why I consider it unfair use.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that this video is fair use. It doesn't abide by the limitations of code #1 for fair use. It is no longer serving as a critique. It also doesn't abide by the limitations for code #2 because it doesn't use a range of different sources, just the original "10 commandments" film. The work could be made fair by using different quotes or subtitles that are not the same as the original film.
ReplyDelete- I agree with John that it was difficult to determine if this video was fair use or not. I had to read over the rules several times to make sure I wan't missing something.
ReplyDelete-I also agree with Amber that the video is funny but the meaning has not been changed enough to be fair use. But I think that with little alteration though it could go from not being fair use to being a fair use video.
@ John and Millicent
ReplyDeleteI also agree with you in regard to how this video was more challenging to determine. It wasn't nearly as straightforward in choosing at the "Bush Blair" video. I guess it was so hard since it incorporated so many aspects (titles, video, and music) into a format that is very similar to something that the original movie would have previewed in.
I do not think this video is fair use.I think this video does not follow the first code of the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Online Videos. Code 1 says that someone can use a copyrighted video to comment or critique but it should not be so extensive "that it ceases to function as critique and becomes, instead, a way of satisfying the audience's taste for the thing that is being quoted." This video clearly goes beyond critiquing a copyrighted material.
ReplyDelete@ Hayley:
ReplyDeleteEven though they follow some of the codes, you also need to notice that the codes have limitations. In my opinion, this video goes beyond the limitations.
@ Katarina
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. The video is unfair use. I think that the fact that you used more than one of the codes and you explained why, proves that the video is unfair use.
I agree with Millicent when she explains this was hard to determine and that she had to read over the rules a couple of times, but after doing that I still believe that this is unfair use.
ReplyDeleteThe original meaning of the video may have not been changed, but the creators provoked a sub-meaning within the original context. Certain ideas are universal and individual may bring to light underlying meanings through use of the the original meaning. I believe video is protected under copyright law. Principle two protects this video. Although the material is under copyright, the creators are illustrating a new point or meaning.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Scott
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points on the principles two and five. The video is protected under these principles. Principle five states "The poster might title a work appropriately so that it encourages comment, or provide context or a spur to discussion with an initial comment on a site, or seek out a site that encourages commentary." The video completely abides by this.
@ Millicent
ReplyDeleteI see your point about the movie being unfair use. It is a tricky situation. The principles can be used to argue both perspectives. It remains difficult to always clearly determine the nature of a video.