2.2 Notes: A fair(y) use tale

“A fair(y) use tale”:  where the rules of copyright are discussed through a mash up of Disney movies and an explanation of copyright issues spoken through their characters. This clever little film made some very clear points such as:

• Copyrighted materials can only be used by copyright owners
• It is illegal to use copyrighted material without permission from the owner
• You can pay for copyright permission (but it can be expensive)
• Books, plays, music, dance, movies, and pictures can be copyrighted
• You cannot copyright and idea, but the FORM the idea takes can be copyrighted (very important in terms of my remediation project)
• Copyright did only lasts for a fixed time of 14 years which was considered enough time for the owner to make money out of it.
• Now copyright lasts for the authors lifetime plus 70 years, preventing works from entering the public domain for free use by people in the same lifetime it was produced
• Fair use allows people to use small parts of copyrighted matierial for parody, critical comment, or education but validity depends on the nature of the work, the amount used, and commercial impact
• Fair use is not a right and is only a legal defense position (in the USA). The fact that it isn't a right allows large media companies to use intimidation to control their commodity.

(dangerousnerd 2007)

So it seems I caught the wrong end of the stick in my last post 2.2 Notes: Recovering fair use (Collins 2008). In it I ask why it is it is OK to quote parts the words or another author in your own writing, but it is illegal  to do this with other forms of media? (e.g. using a line of music from one song to create a new song). The film “A fair(y) use tale” proves that YOU CAN use snippets of other forms of media. ITS NOT ILLEGAL …. Well at least this particular work is not illegal – not today anyway – its murky water to say the least.

So how does it work?

 As dangerousnerd states -  copyright lasts well over 100 years - so the snippets of Disney films used to create A Fair(y) use tale would be well within the confines of copyright law.  This kind of film slips through the net by only using small parts of many different many films, the use of which does impact financially on the originating owner, and the film is for educational purposes - not only educating people through its commentary but also working as an example of what can legally be created out of someone else's content.

This film could also be said to fall under the title of "critical comment" - critiquing perhaps the impact  of  the Walt Disney Corporation on copyright legislation. Ellam's documentary RIP: A remix manifesto states that in 1998 the USA Government granted the Walt Disney Corporation copyright terms of "the life of the author plus 70 years" or plus 95 years if it was a corporation  (Ellam 2009). This precedent means that any media created now, will not enter the public domain and be free for use within our lifetimes. We cannot legally draw upon, extend, remix and remake using the influences of the modern day (unless of course we pay to do it).

A critical  point to make I think.

 dangerousnerd. 2007. A Fair(y) Use Tale. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UycH2HvBRd4 (accessed 28//9/11).

RIP: A Remix Manifesto (part 5). 2009. YouTube,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfSiQjFmcZw (accessed 6/10/11).