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?
This video clearly follows the guidelines of Fair Use in Online Videos, because the video itself is a Mash up. It clearly takes two different speeches from Bush and Blair and mixes them with a song. With the mix you change the three pieces of copyrighted material making it legal. In the first line of principal six it states user often create new works entirely out of existing ones.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this video is fair use because it follows best practice 1: commenting on or critiquing copyrighted material. The makers of the video are ridiculing the relationship between Tony Blair and George Bush. They took clips from various public addresses by both men to use as an example of popular culture. It abides by the limitations of the 1st practice in that it does not cease to function as a critique.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this video does not contain any clear educational significance, it does not violate any Copyright laws. The video is protected by Best Practices Criteria #6 under the Fair Use Act. It states that new material can be created from using existing material. Take opposing works in juxtaposition can give the existing material new meaning and therefore, a new identity. This is seen in the "George Bush/Tony Blair - My Endless Love" Video. The video maker combines the two speeches of George Bush and Tony Blair and then sets them to the soundtrack of "My Endless Love" by Lionel Richie and Diana Ross. The new combination seems to make a humorous and ironic comment about American/English foreign relations during their administrations. The public mascaraed of speeches and ceremonies felt like a love affair, and endless love affair. If this new meaning can be derived from the combination of three preexisting pieces of work, the piece is in adherence with the Best Practices of Fair Use for Online Video and does not violate current Copyright laws.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe"Bush/Blair Endless Love" video takes clips from videos that show takes public speech and meeting clips and pairs it with the song "My Endless Love" to create a new, ironic meaning for the videos and song that is a humorous message of American and British government relations.The original video was not meant to do this since it was created and distributed mainly to inform and notify the public of government affairs. The song, "Endless Love," also was not created to suggest this relationship. Therefore, neither the video footage, nor song, are doing what they were originally meant to be used for, I believe that this video is following the guidelines of fair use as stated in the best practice rule number six (and also number one) that states, "Video makers often create new works entirely out of existing ones, just as in the past artists have made collages and pastiches. Sometimes there is a critical purpose, sometimes a celebratory one, sometimes a humorous or other motive, in which new makers may easily see their uses as fair under category one."
ReplyDeleteThis video adheres to all limitations of rule number six for fair use because, as I have already stated, it changes the meaning of the content so that it is not just being played back or used as it was originally intended.
Yes, the video "George Bush/Tony Blair- My Endless Love" illustrates fair use. this video employs by using an "original work as they need to in order to put it under some kind of scrutiny" as stated in the first principle of fair use entitled "Commenting or critiquing of Copyrighted Material." By way of parody, the video uses a song to illustrate the user's viewpoints of the matter at hand. While thus meeting the principles, this video meets the limitations by not being of market substitute for the original work.
ReplyDeleteTaylor, I agree with you. Especially when you mentioned about the song being used as an ironic tool.
ReplyDeleteMillicent,I'm glad you decide to choose best practice category number one. I thought about that one for a long time trying to decide if this video fell under best practice one or six. Even though I chose number six, considered number one for the humorous, and as you say "ridiculing" commenting that was somewhat like a parody.
ReplyDeleteIt is good that you saw it as falling under other categories than number six.
@John
ReplyDeleteYou are off to a good start on this discussion board and I am beginning to be able to see your argument. Can you be more specific, though?
For instance, you write "With the mix you change the three pieces of copyrighted material making it legal." How is each copyrighted piece changed? Can you explain the changes?
You also write, "In the first line of principal six it states user often create new works entirely out of existing ones." How does the new work differ from the old works? Can you explain the difference(s) between the old and new works?
Finally, what about the limitations of Practice 6? Does this video stay within the limitations or does it exceed them? To be fair use the use must meet the requirements of the practice without exceeding its limitations.
@Millicent
ReplyDeleteGood start. Your defense would be even stronger if you quoted the relevant language from the Code when you make your argument that the use is fair.
And what about the song? Is it the song that is being used to critique or criticize the relationship between Bush and Blair? What is that relationship? Can you describe it more carefully?
@Scott
ReplyDeleteVery thorough defense. But, what about the limitations of Practice 6? Does the video adhere to those limitations? The use is not fair if it exceeds the limitations.
@Taylor
ReplyDeleteI am impressed with the careful development of your defense. What do you think about the particular video clips chosen for Bush/Blair EL? Is the simulated lip-syncing of the song an important element for defending this online video as fair use?
@Erika
ReplyDeleteNice start. Can you explain what you mean when you write, "By way of parody, the video uses a song to illustrate the user's viewpoints of the matter at hand."? That is, what is the parody in this video? What is the user's viewpoint? and What is the matter at hand?
It changes each piece by only taking part of the speech and adding it to the song. The reason this is fair use is because when they only take part of the speech they take away the true meaning of the speech.
ReplyDeleteLike i stated in the first part, the reason its diffrent is because the speeches were made for diffrent point other than the one the new video has turned them into. That makes the new work a completely new work.
The video stay in the limitations by making sure that the video doesnt try to prove the same point that the original speech was given for therefore making it a new work of art of its own.
Millicent i agree with you it completely follows the limitation of the first one by not being a critque of the speeches the men performed.
ReplyDeleteScott i really like what you said about limitations one and i completely agree that is a good reason why it follows the fair use law. You also look at the limitation six, it covers everything else that you question.
ReplyDeleteI believe this video "George Bush/Tony Blair-My Endless Love" is fair use because even though they are actually using clips from the speeches, they are changing the meaning from the purpose of the original speeches. If they were to use the videos for the same meaning that was originally intented then it would violate the Copyright Laws, but they didnt so its considered fair use.
ReplyDeleteI agree with John when he states that they took part of the speech and just added it to a song which changes each piece of the song and the speeches. So they are not the same as they were originally, which is considered fair use.
ReplyDeleteErika I agree when you state how scrutiny plays a part, and how "this video meets the limitations by not being of market substitute for the original work." These are great points to point out for the reasoning of the video being of fair use.
ReplyDelete@Dr. Glaros
ReplyDeleteI think the lip syncing of the videos is another important defense to support my point about the videos not being used for their original purpose. We all know that Blair and Bush were never really singing this song. Yet, after the editing to make them appear as if they were singing the song, the videos give no information about the original speech or dialog. In sum, the lip syncing just helps take the videos further away from their original usage and helps them fall even further into the boundaries of fair use.
@ John
ReplyDeleteI just wanted say that I think the statement you made saying, "when they only take part of the speech they take away the true meaning of the speech," was a very good point
It is a concise, yet important statement of how this fits into fair use.
@Millicent. Interesting that you decided to choose Practice 1. I though I chose Practice 6, Practice 1 felt appropriate as well. I thought the video was humorous at the same time it made fun of two well known people.
ReplyDeleteIt is good that you saw it as falling under other categories than number six.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Thadd: This is a really great example. Instead of making their own clips, the creators of this video actually took the real clips from Tony Blair and George Bush's speeches. They completely changed the meaning of what both of the men were trying to get across but not showing all of the speeches and only showing the little parts they thought were important. You're right, if they were using the videos for the same message and took them then they would have been charged with breaking copyright laws, but they changed the entire message and meaning so it follows the fair use policy.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this video I came to a conclusion that it completely follows the rules of Fair Use policy. This follows practice 6. This video takes parts of what Tony Blair and George Bush said in their past speeches and puts their words together. They added music and changed Tony Blair and George Bush's voices which made it legal. This made new work from old work just like, in my paper, I said that we are able to take other's work and ideas to make new ones if it is done properly.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this video is fair use because it is following code 6 of the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use. The creator of this video created it by taking three existing works. He took videos of George Bush and Tony Blair and combined them with the song My Endless Love. The combination of the already existing videos creating a new video giving a new meaning and it is directed to a different audience.
ReplyDelete@ Taylor
ReplyDeleteYou really explain every detail of why the video is fair use. I think that if I would have had doubts about it, your comment would have had helped me understand fair use better. It is true, how the combination of the existing works creates a new humorous video.
@ John
ReplyDeleteEven though, the video took parts of speeches, I think you forget to talk about the song. Without the song the video would not have had a different meaning, or it would have been confusing in fair use.
The video is protected under the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use under code 6, because it takes three different elements and changes them into a seperate work with a new meaning.
ReplyDelete@ john seat
ReplyDeleteI agree with your use of principle #1 and #6 to defend the video under fair use. I see that the two speeches have been mashed-up to create a new work, but I question how the meaning of the song is changed by including it in the mash-up. The speeches seem to take on more of a new meaning than the song does.
When I say "by way of parody." I mean the use of the song to illustrate the user's view of the Relaationship between Bush and Blair.
ReplyDelete@ erika
ReplyDeleteI question the amount of serious commenting or critiquing is going on in the video. The material from their speeches is not addressed. The author is only using short clips of them mouthing similar words in order to fit with the song. The song itself is not being parodied or commented on. Also, the abrupt and rough ending suggests the intent of the video is absurdity rather than thoughtful critique.
This video is an example of fair use. They simply are just critiquing the video in their own way, and people are entitled to the freedom of expression. The best practice being used is the practice of using and commenting on or critiquing copyrighted material. The video does adhere to the limitations of the first principle in the way that the video is not used as a substitute for the work itself. They are simply using the video for humor.
ReplyDeleteGreat observation millicent!! this video is a critique at which adheres entirely to the first part of the Code of Best Practices.
ReplyDelete@ Taylor I agree. I did not think about the use of the song as being copyrighted, because music is such an everyday expression. Videos are as well, but music is something everyone uses as an expression.
ReplyDelete@ Scott
ReplyDeleteHaving a better understanding of the real life relationship between Blair and Bush will help to better understand the concept as to why "My Endless Love" was chosen in this video.
I believe the video is fair use because it follows principle #6 under the Code of Best Practices for Fair Use in Online Videos. The video "mashed" bits and pieces of Bush and Blair's speeches to the song "My Endless Love" by Lionel Richie and Diana Ross. A new work was created, by changing the meaning of the original pieces, to create a humorous parody of Bush/Blair's and America/Britain's relationships. The parody also addresses a completely different audience than the original copyrighted material's intended.
ReplyDeletePrinciple one states "Video makers often take as their raw material an example of popular culture, which they comment on in some way. They may add unlikely subtitles. They may create a fan tribute (positive commentary) or ridicule a cultural object (negative commentary)." This video serves as a humorous portrayal. The mash up and song choice create a novel video although the creator uses unoriginal footage. The video does not serve as a substitute but as an funny critique.
ReplyDelete@ Amber
ReplyDeleteI also see Principle six as a way to defend the video. Multiple elements are combined to create a new meaning and video for a different audience.
@ Taylor
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point about the lip syncing. Not only does it add ridiculing critique but it does further allow the video to fall into fair use.
taylor hillside casino | betting sites,
ReplyDeletetaylor hillside casino. Taylor toaks titanium 750ml pot Hillside Casino - where is titanium found Betting sites, columbia titanium pants Odds & titanium alloy nier Predictions, Latest titanium athletics promotions.
s322m0iztos000 Discreet Vibrators,couples sexy toys,small dildo,Butterfly Vibrator,sex chair,male sexy toys,wolf dildo,Discreet Vibrators,silicone sex doll x126u7jqwfx251
ReplyDelete