Over the last few days, I've asked a few copyright lawyers, on various points of the copyright spectrum, whether they think the inclusion of 3 seconds from Perez Hilton's video blog and 7 seconds of Miss USA pageant footage in a National Organization for Marriage TV ad about the gay marriage debate were fair uses. So far, everyone with whom I've spoken or emailed -- from studio lawyer to committed copyleftist -- agrees with me that these are clear examples of fair uses. And I haven't located a single bit of legal commentary on the web siding with Hilton (né Mario Lavandeira) or the Miss Universe organization ("MUO"). In fact the only people I know of asserting that these uses are infringing are the attorneys for Lavandeira and MUO (though neither of them has specifically addressed fair use).
So I have a serious, non-rhetorical question: can anyone make a reasoned legal argument that the fair use defense does not apply to NOM's use of the Lavandeira and MUO clips? What are your best cases? And if you believe that these are not fair uses, can you give examples of what you believe are fair uses, and distinguish those from the NOM example? Please respond in the comments.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
4 comments:
Comments here are moderated. I appreciate substantive comments, whether or not they agree with what I've written. Stay on topic, and be civil. Comments that contain name-calling, personal attacks, or the like will be rejected. If you want to rant about how evil the RIAA and MPAA are, and how entertainment companies' employees and attorneys are bad people, there are plenty of other places for you to go.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I am surprised that MUO even sent a cease and desist letter. I am not surprised that it is unhappy in getting dragged into this political debate, but by sending a weak cease and desist letter, MUO is just plunging into the debate even more.
ReplyDeleteCompare this to the sampling case where the use of two notes was said to be infringing.
ReplyDelete@ Anonymous 4:26:
ReplyDeleteIf you are referring to the Sixth Circuit's decision in Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films, that case did not consider whether the use of the short sample of a sound recording was a fair use. It merely determined that the copying was not excused by the de minimis doctrine.
http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/6th/04a0297p.html
Seems like a textbook example of fair use as "commentary". I mean, it's right there in the preamble, for FSM's sake.
ReplyDelete