the reason that obamas picture is not a copyright infringement is because the picture is an official photo of the president,and all federal pictures and documents are never copyrighted they are free to use as you wish..you forgot to point this little facet out....
Why is it that none of my detractors have addressed the design of Youtube's own DMCA claim form? The form clearly steers people away from filing a DMCA if you check the radio button for "I appear in this video without permission" or "someone is using my image" - exactly the reasons that Gary filed the DMCAs he has.
Think about how many DMCA claims that Youtube must process each and every day. It's reasonable to deduce that the form was intentionally designed that way to reduce false DMCAs.
I guess we need to shut down MAD magazine, Saturday Night Live, Cracked, College Humor, Weird Al Yankovic, 2 Live Crew, and all other artists and individuals who have made a living reinterpreting other people's work. Better yet, let's not let Gary tell us what copyright law is.
I give plenty of citations and refer to the law explicitly. Seems like you better get reading.
Gary thinks copyright law and defamation law are the same thing, my point in making this video was to show that they aren't.
no one can use your ORIGINAL works and manipulate them to libel you, you pointed out in the beginning of your vid that Gary's DMCA claims were not founded because he claims defamation, then you go on to debunk his claims further saying that what was said was not defamation, the video is a PUBLISHED work, that means it falls under libel. The reason that mad and cracked can do what they do is that they have their own artists do the parodies, and its not commentary.
Have you ever seen the Unnecessary Censorship segments on the Jimmy Kimmel show? They take clips from children's shows and put censor bars over things and bleep out audio to make it seem like the characters are cussing or having sex. The Daily Show does similar things all the time. You only have to license the work if you are using it as is - not making a parody or using it for critique.
Libel is a type of defamation, by the way, as is slander.
Another example: if you use a copyrighted song as an intro to your video, that is copyright infringement unless you have a license or the author's permission; however, if you are making a parody of the song, or playing parts of a song to critique the lyrics or musicianship that is NOT copyright infringement (it is protected under fair use).
granted... but you cannot mix parody with commentary. you can't put a Hitler mustache on Gary and then deride him in your commentary its obviously malicious. if you put a Hitler mustache on Gary and then make a parody, that's different, but it must be one or the other not both.
I'm sorry, but yes you CAN mix parody with commentary. If what you were saying was true, all of Nostalgia Critic's reviews would be taken down and he'd be sued for copyright infringement. All of his video reviews have satirical elements and often manipulate video for parody purposes.
Just because Gary doesn't like it, doesn't mean that it's illegal. Coolio didn't like Weird Al Yankovic's parody of his song, but it didn't change Yankovic's right to sell or perform the parody he wrote.
You seem to miss the point of Gary's argument. He maintains that use of copyrighted material for defamation of the copyright holder is not fair use, and therefore not protected.
Also, contrary to your opinion, "celebrities" don't toss out their right to persue legal action for defamation.
Furthermore, "fair use" is not as clear-cut as you would have us believe. In fact, it is hotly contested, and decisions on what is or is not fair use are likely to vary widely from judge to judge.
Like I state in this video, copyright law is separate from defamation law. If Gary wishes to take anyone to court over defamation, he is free to do so, but he cannot use the DMCA as a tool to do it. The DMCA is quite explicitly meant for copyright law.
I mention in the video that celebrities can sue for defamation if they can prove malicious intent.
I made a case in the video why I believe SeventhCycle's actions qualify as fair use. I know a few lawyers on Youtube here who would concur with me
His claim is not that he can sue for defamation using the DMCA, but that the use of his copyrighted work is not "fair use" in the instance he is claiming infringement on.
He is claiming the malicious "defaming" use of the copyrighted material negates fair use consideration. Would his claim stand up in court? Hard to say, really. Personally, I would guess not, but that does not mean he should be denied his day in court, if he so wishes.
The defamation issue has yet to be proven in court. He must first PROVE that he's been defamed, then a JUDGE will order the video taken down, the judge will not use the DMCA - it's the wrong legal tool. If it's urgent, he can seek an immediate injunction while the trial plays out.
Again, the DMCA is the wrong tool for the job, indicated by Youtube's own DMCA claim form shown at 2:04 .
except i have not heard you say the law is a damn devil, with a million tricks up it's sleeve that can lead to disaster all around; and therefore people need to hire their own lawyer with expertise on intellectual property if they want specific advice on a particular case.
i'd rather people spend their time just making videos bashing the crap out of each other, call it good. then make another.
I'm very curious here. Have you seen anything within legality that defines "public figure".
I understand your argument that Gary has a couple thousand subscribers, but what exactly is considered a public figure? Are we all public figures because we publicize videos?
in general see eg gertz v welch ussc "(1) Involuntary Public Figure: become public figure through no purposeful action of their own...
(2) Always Public Figures: those who occupy position of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes;
(3) Public Figures on Specific Issues: "those who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."
the reason that obamas picture is not a copyright infringement is because the picture is an official photo of the president,and all federal pictures and documents are never copyrighted they are free to use as you wish..you forgot to point this little facet out....
Elenkhos 2 years ago
Why is it that none of my detractors have addressed the design of Youtube's own DMCA claim form? The form clearly steers people away from filing a DMCA if you check the radio button for "I appear in this video without permission" or "someone is using my image" - exactly the reasons that Gary filed the DMCAs he has.
Think about how many DMCA claims that Youtube must process each and every day. It's reasonable to deduce that the form was intentionally designed that way to reduce false DMCAs.
daedamot 2 years ago
you're full of shit... you can't take someones material and change it to present them in a defaming manner, this IS covered under copyright law....
Elenkhos 2 years ago
I guess we need to shut down MAD magazine, Saturday Night Live, Cracked, College Humor, Weird Al Yankovic, 2 Live Crew, and all other artists and individuals who have made a living reinterpreting other people's work. Better yet, let's not let Gary tell us what copyright law is.
I give plenty of citations and refer to the law explicitly. Seems like you better get reading.
Gary thinks copyright law and defamation law are the same thing, my point in making this video was to show that they aren't.
daedamot 2 years ago
no one can use your ORIGINAL works and manipulate them to libel you, you pointed out in the beginning of your vid that Gary's DMCA claims were not founded because he claims defamation, then you go on to debunk his claims further saying that what was said was not defamation, the video is a PUBLISHED work, that means it falls under libel. The reason that mad and cracked can do what they do is that they have their own artists do the parodies, and its not commentary.
Elenkhos 2 years ago
Have you ever seen the Unnecessary Censorship segments on the Jimmy Kimmel show? They take clips from children's shows and put censor bars over things and bleep out audio to make it seem like the characters are cussing or having sex. The Daily Show does similar things all the time. You only have to license the work if you are using it as is - not making a parody or using it for critique.
Libel is a type of defamation, by the way, as is slander.
daedamot 2 years ago
Another example: if you use a copyrighted song as an intro to your video, that is copyright infringement unless you have a license or the author's permission; however, if you are making a parody of the song, or playing parts of a song to critique the lyrics or musicianship that is NOT copyright infringement (it is protected under fair use).
daedamot 2 years ago
granted... but you cannot mix parody with commentary. you can't put a Hitler mustache on Gary and then deride him in your commentary its obviously malicious. if you put a Hitler mustache on Gary and then make a parody, that's different, but it must be one or the other not both.
Elenkhos 2 years ago
yes you are absolutely right, but you CAN use parts of songs without permission in creative works as long as the clipped amount is small.
Elenkhos 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but yes you CAN mix parody with commentary. If what you were saying was true, all of Nostalgia Critic's reviews would be taken down and he'd be sued for copyright infringement. All of his video reviews have satirical elements and often manipulate video for parody purposes.
Just because Gary doesn't like it, doesn't mean that it's illegal. Coolio didn't like Weird Al Yankovic's parody of his song, but it didn't change Yankovic's right to sell or perform the parody he wrote.
daedamot 2 years ago
Comment removed
Elvis1972MovieTour 9 months ago
Ugh, gary drones are so annoying.
mparker18311 2 years ago
You seem to miss the point of Gary's argument. He maintains that use of copyrighted material for defamation of the copyright holder is not fair use, and therefore not protected.
Also, contrary to your opinion, "celebrities" don't toss out their right to persue legal action for defamation.
Furthermore, "fair use" is not as clear-cut as you would have us believe. In fact, it is hotly contested, and decisions on what is or is not fair use are likely to vary widely from judge to judge.
pfarabee 2 years ago
Like I state in this video, copyright law is separate from defamation law. If Gary wishes to take anyone to court over defamation, he is free to do so, but he cannot use the DMCA as a tool to do it. The DMCA is quite explicitly meant for copyright law.
I mention in the video that celebrities can sue for defamation if they can prove malicious intent.
I made a case in the video why I believe SeventhCycle's actions qualify as fair use. I know a few lawyers on Youtube here who would concur with me
daedamot 2 years ago
His claim is not that he can sue for defamation using the DMCA, but that the use of his copyrighted work is not "fair use" in the instance he is claiming infringement on.
He is claiming the malicious "defaming" use of the copyrighted material negates fair use consideration. Would his claim stand up in court? Hard to say, really. Personally, I would guess not, but that does not mean he should be denied his day in court, if he so wishes.
And it certainly doesn't make his filing "false"
pfarabee 2 years ago
The defamation issue has yet to be proven in court. He must first PROVE that he's been defamed, then a JUDGE will order the video taken down, the judge will not use the DMCA - it's the wrong legal tool. If it's urgent, he can seek an immediate injunction while the trial plays out.
Again, the DMCA is the wrong tool for the job, indicated by Youtube's own DMCA claim form shown at 2:04 .
daedamot 2 years ago
pretty good so far.
except i have not heard you say the law is a damn devil, with a million tricks up it's sleeve that can lead to disaster all around; and therefore people need to hire their own lawyer with expertise on intellectual property if they want specific advice on a particular case.
i'd rather people spend their time just making videos bashing the crap out of each other, call it good. then make another.
windham666 2 years ago
Awesome Video
ElvisonTour1972 2 years ago
I'm very curious here. Have you seen anything within legality that defines "public figure".
I understand your argument that Gary has a couple thousand subscribers, but what exactly is considered a public figure? Are we all public figures because we publicize videos?
Just curious what you've found on this.
SeventhCycle 2 years ago
in general see eg gertz v welch ussc "(1) Involuntary Public Figure: become public figure through no purposeful action of their own...
(2) Always Public Figures: those who occupy position of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes;
(3) Public Figures on Specific Issues: "those who have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."
windham666 2 years ago