Copyright issues can get pretty thorny when it comes to parody and satire. Although the law seems clear when it states that it may be “use[d] in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied,” art is always open to interpretation. However, this exception exists to allow use for artistic reasons, commentary upon, and some believe, to protect homages. This is considered the fair use doctrine. Strangely enough, a recent copyright protection vs. fair use exception issue is arising because a computer program is unable to properly interpret the work it is flagging for removal due to copyright abuse.
When Google bought YouTube in 2006, one of the main changes to the site was a stricter protection for copyrighted material. One of the main tools the site uses to identity offenders is their Content ID system. Copyright holders enter their material and a sophisticated metrics system matches markers against other videos and their audio tracks hosted on the site. The copyright owner can then decide what they want to do; make money off the video via ads, simply track the stats, or have the offending clip removed outright.
Constantin Films, copyright owners of Downfall, an epic tale of Hitler’s final days, used the Content ID system and were alerted to a treasure trove of videos using the video from their film. A popular meme on the internet has been to replace the subtitles in the scene when Hitler is alerted by advisers that the war is futile, to have him overacting to any numbers of modern things; the release of the iPad, getting banned from World of Warcraft, the death of Michael Jackson, and even the blanket removal of the parodies upon the request of Constantin Films.
The problem with the Content ID software is that it only looks for specific markers and is unable to make a judgment based on content. Clearly these videos are parodies and are thus protected by the fair use doctrine. However, this Content ID system takes a human out of the equation and can block any video at the request of the copyright owner. Warner Brothers recently blocked a professor’s lecture on the importance of remix creativity because it sampled a copyrighted song in a remix played to clarify and illustrate the point. YouTube offers an appeals process to get these videos back up, and the lecture has since been returned, but how many amateur parodists realize the law is actually on their side when faced with a threatening legal notice regarding their work?
The protection of parodied works is absolute. The 30-Second Bunny films clearly appropriate copyrighted characters and stories, for profit, and no one questions that the purpose is parody. The film Be Kind Rewind skewers this issue when the big bad corporate bosses show up and shut down an operation remaking popular films with a distinct lo-fi quality. On its face value, the issues in Be Kind Rewind are the same as that of the Hitler parodies. All of these “offenders” have every right to make their parodies. They just need to make sure they are aware of their rights and not be bullied into submission by a corporate letterhead and an empty threat of punitive damages.
Posted by Becky on May 5, 2010 at 1:00pm.
