See it for yourself here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/13/star-wars-uncut-fans-recr_n_536332.html

http://www.starwarsuncut.com/

(1) Since this is a clearly a [not all that good] parody, the creators are not ignoring "the current overly restrictive copyright regime," they are operating within the current regime.

(2) While moments are funny, some - a lot? - of it is just plain stupid. If this stuff is an illustration of what is possible without copyright, the completed film might become the poster child for why there is some value to copyright.

I can see the headline by the MPAA now: Get rid of copyright and this is what you get.

Gotta go puke now...

To quote the Supreme Court on the definition of 'parody' [Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music] -

"For the purposes of copyright law, the nub of the definitions, and the heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material, is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works. See, e. g., Fisher v. Dees, supra, at 437; MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 F. 2d 180, 185 (CA2 1981). If, on the contrary, the commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh, the claim to fairness in borrowing from another's work diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish), and other factors, like the extent of its commerciality, loom larger."

How does this "comment" on Star Wars exactly? Maybe some of the 15 second clips do - but others clearly do not. It is not at all clear that this is a parody. (Though it could also be said that the very definition of parody is not at all clear - which is another problem with the current copyright regime since it encourages the use of personal artistic biases among judges, rather than objective principles of law).

Regardless of your irrelevant opinion on what is "good" or "funny", how did you determine that it was supposed to all be "funny" to begin with? Some clearly just wanted to express a new take on previously created material.

The problem with your off-the-cuff "parody" analysis is that, while it might apply to isolated snippets of the film, it doesn't necessarily apply to the film as a whole. The "comment" on the original Star Wars is not to poke fun of it - but rather to show that several people could imitate it.

If you truly understood copyright law, you would realize that the issue is a lot more complex than your "It's just an unfunny parody" analysis.

Justin:

Mad Magazine does parodies all the time, even though not every single sentence is "the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's works." Yet, the sum total of the work and the context of the work is a comment on the author's works.

I initially was not considering the work a parody except portions are funny as hell. Some is absolutely stupid, but then again, so was Cracked Magazine, which was also a magazine of parodies. But, the moment I saw the humor in snippets, I realized that there is extensive commentary on the style of the film, even including the special effects. In fact, I then reconsidered all the snippets I saw and now consider them all a parody, much like "Hardware Wars."

If the snippets were an attempt to be true to the original film, rather than having people in doggy suits or papers bags with faces drawn them, then I could see copyright issues. As it stands, seems as though the entire work is a commentary on Star Wars. Looks like a parody, smells like a parody, and has good and bad jokes like a parody. At what point do you call a parody a parody?

This is the best you could come up with? Really Justin?

There are much better examples of great works created despite copyright than this.

Back years ago, most software developers were coding in proprietary closed source formats. Today, a lot more do open source development.

When you don't have a choice or when it becomes acceptable to do things differently (eg, others are doing it and they are happy and making things people like and making a living), then the migration becomes serious.

[Software has another advantage here in that the skill itself enables you to create your own tools. This is not the case for artists to the same degree; however, all of these professions are converging at least when on the computer. Note, that just like with open source software, people contribute in many different ways. You will see many "extras" partake in interesting film productions for $0 if they know they can leverage the ending product for themselves.]

>> You will see many "extras" partake in interesting film productions for $0 if they know they can leverage the ending product for themselves.

In fact, people even pay in order to participate in fun group activities. They even pay so that others don't have to (eg, the host).

Hey, did you people catch that for some decades now some crazy people, obviously with too much money on their hands, have been spending a lot of money to produce funny commercials that they then *want* everyone to see for $0!!!!!

I foresee many of the wealthier individuals (and businesses) trading their dough in order to get an interesting part in the film or their name there somewhere. Investments in the film (and donations) can end up paying dividends, eg, by increasing the visibility of the individual, town, business, etc.

People will pay for exposure in something that is of quality. The higher the quality the more they will pay. This would be true even if others could take the production and carve it up because they would have gotten the most widespread and likely highest quality exposure (they may not pay as much as they might today, but generally that just means money will go around more and not be as concentrated in few hands).

Also, though I am a huge fan of source code so that other (including myself) could take the production and tweak it more easily (ie, apply changes directly on the raw materials that get automatically assembled into a whole), not providing source is a clear advantage to the original production because it becomes more difficult to change by others in any significant fashion so as to achieve something comparably as good.

Also, if a scene involves a large complex shot, few special effect people will mess with that as much and few will be able to re-shoot it with as much success. This means a quality production with complex shots will reach more eyeballs, generally, than any of its derivative works. This increases the money that will flow towards the original production.

Finally, just like others can do things with your production, you can leverage their contributions back.

>> When you don't have a choice or when it becomes acceptable to do things differently (eg, others are doing it and they are happy and making things people like and making a living), then the migration becomes serious.

Almost all big businesses and key entities seem to speak the language of strong copyright; the biases and group think are pervasive.

Thus many are seduced into supporting it. Many think they have few alternatives. The path to strong copyright support has been well worn, and there are many sign posts urging you to return to that path should you venture off it.

If you do venture off, eg, by creating as public domain, you find many groups from industry pool their resources to help ensure you fail. Eg, there are many supporting entities that are already tide up in contracts, and big business will spend money to target you directly if necessary. Overall, you are at a competitive disadvantage, certainly more times than would be the case were copyright simply abolished for everyone or at least weakened.

Once the monopolies are abolished, people will obviously "settle" for lower expectations. Most of the best artists *have to* care primarily about their art. Making money is secondary or lower in priority (your main form of consumption is the study and creation process itself).

Plus, for various reasons (including that they will tend to be less business savvy and will be targeted more by those seeking money themselves), artists that have made a lot of money will frequently find themselves in need to tour and essentially work in order to get the money they "need". Thus, making some less money will not necessarily impact too negatively the lifestyles and free time of the wealthier (and presumably frequently more talented) artists among us that much. Meanwhile, many in lower rungs will have an easier time also making a name for themselves. Overall, without these monopolies the wealth of the population will increase and we will see more innovation.

These reasons help explain why a larger fraction of talent today give up the bulk of their hours and works into the strong copyright regime, leaving much less time and drive to produce quality products to "give away".

>> If this stuff is an illustration of what is possible without copyright, the completed film might become the poster child for why there is some value to copyright.

While it is fun to criticize the production featured at the top, an important point is that such a production would have been much less likely (or have been of lower quality) 10 years back. This is perhaps largely because low cost high quality software, much more capable computers and hardware, an established low cost Internet and communication media, and other gains enabled by 20/21st century technology mean that more quality works can be created today for a much lower investment, growing the pool of artists able to participate at a more sophisticated level relative to the big boys and girls.

[Other arguments against the quote were already given in earlier comments. ..Alright, I think it will be my last posting on this thread and probably for today.]

Copyright is doomed. It's already been diagnosed. Soon it will be on life support. And then...

"This is the best you could come up with? Really Justin? There are much better examples of great works created despite copyright than this."

No - this is not the "best" I can do in terms of showcasing "great" works that clearly violate copyright laws. However, I called your attention to it because:

1. It is the latest example.

2. Even though it might not be a "great" work in your erudite opinion, it is a far better example because it showcases collective creativity far better than most works, which is the primary hub of what the Internet has opened up. 1,000 submissions from different fans doesn't violate copyright of Star Wars once, it violates it 1,000 times - which provides a far better illustration for the need for copyright reform. It shows that copyright is a barrier that now affects everyone - not just the few media distributors from days past.

I'm sorry that this point was apparently lost on you in your rush to be an art critic.

Anonymous from 4/14/2010 at 2:29 -

You are simply ignorant of the complexities of copyright law when it comes to "parody".

How would you explain the (in)famous DR. SEUSS ENTERPRISES v PENGUIN BOOKS case, which still remains valid law?

Read it for yourself and then come back to me and explain how sure you are that "Star Wars" uncut is "parody" -

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/Seuss.html

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/CAT1.jpg

To quote from the case:

Although The Cat NOT in the Hat! does broadly mimic Dr. Seuss' characteristic style, it does not hold his style up to ridicule. The stanzas have "no critical bearing on the substance or style of' The Cat in the Hat. Katz and Wrinn merely use the Cat's stove-pipe hat, the narrator ("Dr. Juice), and the title (The Cat NOT in the Hat!) "to get attention" or maybe even "to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh."

Some 15 second snippets of Star Wars uncut were apparently created to make fun of the original scene - but others are not. They are merely different expressive takes on it utilizing low cost special effects that common home computers are now capable of. Little dialog has been changed (which is not what you would expect from parody). The whole point behind Star Wars uncut is not to make fun of the original, but rather to showcase collective creativity in paying tribute to it. The fact that some individual scenes seem silly via their use of paper bags with faces on them doesn't magically transform it into "parody" as a matter of law.

Trust me, this issue is a lot more complex than your matchbox legal treatise makes it out to be.

Justin:

Oh, my. I did not realize I was speaking with a copyright attorney. I bow to your great knowledge.

Pure mimicry will get you a copyright violation. To write a story in the style of an existing book, using the same characters, the same style and about similar events, or copying the same events, is only going to get you a lawsuit with respect to copyright.

I watched Star Wars uncut several times, and I alternately laughed and then groaned pretty much the whole way through. Yes, portions might not be considered parody, but as I pointed out before, if you read parodies done elsewhere, as in "The Onion," "National Lampoon," "Mad Magazine," "Cracked," and many, many other places, not every second of every scene is a parody, but the work in its entirety is. In many parodies, there are extensive portions that are "serious" and follow the original story line nearly precisely, but the intent is to set up the parody.

Of course, Star Wars uncut remains a work in progress. It is possible that depending on the choices of the compilers that the work becomes more of an homage rather than a parody, at which point it will be up to the holder of the copyright as to how they decide to deal with the work.

Personally, I think they should do nothing because it is not as though Star Wars uncut threatens the Star Wars franchise or could be confused with the original.

My "matchbox legal treatise," snark, snark, says that Star Wars uncut currently looks like a parody and trying to make this thing a poster child for the possibilities of what might happen without copyright is pure silliness. You also forgot to point out that I also said that if this is what we get without copyright, perhaps there is a benefit to copyright. I know Star Wars uncut started to make me ill...maybe it was the guy in the doggy suit (which reminded me of another parody, "Space Balls"). Was that you by any chance?

Anonymous at 4/16/2010 at 5:51AM

"Personally, I think they should do nothing because it is not as though Star Wars uncut threatens the Star Wars franchise or could be confused with the original."

I completely agree - but that has nothing to do with the realities of copyright law. So its irrelevant to the point I was making. Most violations of copyright that are punished in courts do not threaten or confuse itself with the original works, as I'm sure you well know.

I don't expect you to "bow to my great knowledge" - which is not all that great beyond reading up on the latest case law which anyone can do (with or without a degree). I simply expect you to keep an open mind and consider the fact that your immediate proclamation of it being a "parody" might be in error. Just because you want it to be so (as I do) does not make it so.

I don't intend to "argue from authority" here by suggesting "I am a lawyer and you are not - so you can just shut up now". Many lawyers/scientists, etc. do just that and it drives me nuts. I merely intend to point out sources that you apparently aren't aware of in order to convince you to become more educated on the subject and reconsider your thinking. Frankly, had your initial comment not taken on such a dismissive and smug "know it all" tone (i.e, your emphatic statement that this example is "CLEARLY" parody), I wouldn't have had to respond in kind.

The fact that CRACKED or MAD magazine do parodies is a very shallow starting point in considering the far more complex issues that "Star Wars uncut" poses with respect to copyright law. Your wanting to label it as "parody" simply does not make it so.

But to get back to the original point I was making, give me your honest analysis on how these very typical examples (all from different people) could be considered "parody":

http://vimeo.com/5955796

http://vimeo.com/6748732

http://vimeo.com/7822084

There are just as many examples of these sort as there are of clips with faces drawn on paper bags.

If this constitutes "parody" in any way, then "parody" is the exception which swallows the rule and effectively destroys the concept of allowing a copyright owner control over "derivative" works (which would all be good thing in my opinion - but that is not how courts currently see it).

(And I'll leave aside the fact that the site also allows you to watch the original Star Wars film in order to make your derivative work clip - which of course is another obvious copyright violation.)

I am not interested in people's personal opinions on how "good" or "valuable" they think this or any other work is. I don't want the whims of artistic czars to dictate what constitutes copyright violations. I want sensible reforms that can be applied objectively to all works across the board.

Hopefully my arguments will prompt you to reconsider the substance of your opinion. I am confident that the links and sources I have provided would sway most objective observers who might come across our debate. But if you'd rather just continue with an ego pissing contest, have at it. I am confident that most people who read the exchanges will understand the points I have been making and consider your own responses in due fashion.

"I want sensible reforms that can be applied objectively to all works across the board."

How about setting a date, say January 1 2013, on which all copyrights expire. Until then, copyrights continue to exist and be enforceable; one can even obtain new ones, register them, etc.; but they all expire on that same date. On that date all works fall into the public domain; all works created after that date automatically are public domain from the get-go.

This would abolish copyright without too much upheaval; it would create a period of transition in which terms effectively keep shrinking, in which businesses can position themselves for the copyright-free future.

A similar phase-out could be applied to patents.

And it certainly is a "sensible reform that can be applied objectively to all works across the board".

"I'm sorry that this point was apparently lost on you in your rush to be an art critic."

I wasn't talking about the quality. :P

Yet another example where a label of "parody" does not offer any practical protections from the way the current copyright regime operates:

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/04/youtube-removes-hundreds-of-those-hitler-is-speaking-german-parody-videos.html

Justin:

Clever strawman for your argument. The take-down rules have yet to be challenged with respect to copyright law, at least in the U.S. Now, after someone argues that the videos that were taken down in a court of law are parody, and are protected under U.S. law, and then loses, I agree. In the meantime, internet take-downs and copyright are not directly connected.

Fair use analysis:

1. the purpose and character of the use

New expression or meaning added: check. Informing the original work with new insights: not so much so, if they mainly aren't commenting on the movie itself.

Maybe give them half a point here.

2. the nature of the copyrighted work

It's a documentary, so factual, and not an unpublished work. Check.

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken

One brief scene out of an entire movie. Check.

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.

These uses do not compete with the movie, and may even increase awareness of it, similar to an advertising trailer. These uses also do not affect the market for paid "licensing" for use in making these kinds of clips, because said market is non-existent; amateurs making videos like these simply cannot afford the fees to license the clips they sample anyway. The copyright holder is thus not deprived of any income by these uses. So, check.

These videos clearly meet three of the four fair use factors and partially meet the fourth. A finding of fair use from a court, while not certain, seems probable.

Nobody Nowhere -

You are misapplying how the factors are actually used in court decisions in order to try serve your own arguments.

You use false analysis such as "These uses also do not affect the market for paid 'licensing' for use in making these kinds of clips, because said market is non-existent; amateurs making videos like these simply cannot afford the fees to license the clips they sample anyway. The copyright holder is thus not deprived of any income by these uses. So, check."

That's a pure howler. Your analysis is completely wrong according to every notable fair use case that has been handed down (which is why copyright law needs reform). You are suggesting that because certain people can't afford to license works, it then becomes a positive fair use factor for them? Please.

It should also be noted that courts don't care which markets currently exist with regard to fair use analysis. They consider any POTENTIAL market that may or may not exist in the future.

How about this? Rather than just giving self-serving answers, how about you find some actual case law and try and argue the similarities?

I look at cases such as Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. and DR. SEUSS ENTERPRISES v PENGUIN BOOKS and then come to the reasonable conclusion that a fair use argument is problematic. (These are just a few of many such examples.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steinberg_v._Columbia_Pictures_Industries,_Inc.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/Seuss.html

How am I wrong here?

Comment at 04/21/2010 10:33 AM by Anonymous -

How is that a "straw man"? The videos have in fact been taken down, correct? The so-called "parody" speech had currently been suppressed, yes?

I have thus pointed out that the "parody" claim does not offer any PRACTICAL defense. If your argument that spending literally years in court and thousands of dollars (perhaps even tens of thousands or more) in order to get an initial ruling that maybe it is protected and thus should be put back up on the internet is somehow practical to the way people interact with copyrighted works these days, then I really have no response since your view is completely divorced from reality.

This all begs the question, if the "parody" defense is as strong as you suggest, why didn't YouTube refuse to comply with the takedown request and point out to the filmmakers that it was all protected speech?

If you have to march into court each and every time to determine what is or is not free speech, then it obviously proves my point more than you are willing to concede. Far from being a "strawman", it is very much on point. You just don't want to accept the argument I am making, and you want to "win" this debate at any cost in order to soothe your ego. So therefore, you mis-characterize my arguments and then proclaim my evidence to be a "strawman".

Can we at least agree on this? If a court ever rejects a parody defense for the Hitler videos, then it would surely reject a similar argument for Star Wars Uncut?

Any U.S. challenge to the take-down rules will not apply to the takedown regime as a whole, but only as applied to an individual case. Since it is very expensive to mount such a challenge against even a single takedown instance, it is not clear that even that event will be forthcoming anytime soon.

Ask yourself this question: If Star Wars Uncut was hosted on YouTube, and LucasFilm issued a takedown order. What should the response be from YouTube, and why?

If any scenario results in it being taken down, then it is proof that copyright law currently prevents its free dissemination, and that it would require people ignoring such laws in order to get the work out there. Hence, based on how I framed my original comments in the post, I remain convinced that I am right and that you are wrong.

Someone masquerading as the site operator sputtered:

Nobody Nowhere -

You are [insult deleted][false accusation of dishonesty deleted]

No, you're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

You use [insult deleted]

No. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

How about this? Rather than [false accusation of dishonesty deleted]

No, you're the liar. None of the nasty things that you have said or implied about me are at all true.

How am I wrong here?

The moment you opened your mouth and began to say negative things about me, you were wrong.

Don't do it again.

Re: Nobody Nowhere comment at 4/21/2010 at 3:40pm.

I'll just let the response from someone who wished to remain anonymous speak for itself. When people cross reference it with my comment at 2:46pm, I'm sure they will be able to weigh each argument appropriately and give them both the consideration that they deserve.