What makes you think fan fiction has any sort of fair use protection?
It can. That's not to say it always does, or even commonly does. But any sort of use can be a fair use, including fanfic.
If it isn't a spoof or a commentary on the original work, largely through irony and satire, it isn't parody. Changing the genre or style isn't enough.
It could be. But fair use hinges entirely on the specific facts of the use -- it would take the right example.
True, but this ignores the fact that characters themselves can be protected by copyright.
They can be, but there are limits. The key is how well-defined the character is. Also, bear in mind that really the character is not protected by copyright per se -- the character is just a part of a greater work, which is protected by copyright. Whenever a work which establishes some trait of a character falls into the public domain, so too does that part of the character. Unauthorized uses of the character are really unauthorized uses of the work, which is what can give rise to infringement. A character cannot be copyrighted separately from the work in which he appears, however.
Fan fiction sites can exist legally only to the extent that the character copyright owner grants permission
Or to the extent that the work is not protected, either because it is in the public domain, or because some exception to copyright law applies.
Why on Earth would the studio pay those fees, if they didn't have to?
Clarity; To avoid paying greater fees for litigation down the road, even if they were confident that they would win; As a favor wrapped in a plausible excuse; For good PR. There are good reasons to do so, is the point.
Copyright law holds that you can satirize or parody someone else's work without their permission; thus Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer do not have to pay licensing fees for the movies that they rip off in their awful "parodies."
No it doesn't. Copyright law in the US states that if a copyright is prima facie infringed, but constitutes fair use, then there is no infringement. Parodies and satires -- and for that matter, literally any other sort of use -- can potentially be fair uses, but are not necessarily fair uses. Certainly there have been both parodies and satires which were not fair uses.
But no English speaker would use the word "satire" or "parody" to describe Kahn's movie, precisely because of the qualities that people loved about it (dark, violent, almost completely humorless).
It can easily be seen as a satire. Whether it's a parody is a slightly more difficult question. The legal distinction, for those unfamiliar with this, is that a parody somehow makes fun of the work being used; a satire makes fun of something else, but uses the work to do so. Making fun of the trend of 'gritty reboots' in cinema by using the Power Rangers is certainly satire -- it makes fun of other gritty reboot films and shows. I'd have to have seen it, and know something about the regular Power Rangers to have an opinion as to whether it's a parody, and I frankly don't care enough to bother.
The question of whether the filmmakers meant it as a satire at the time that they made it and released it, and whether that matters, is certainly an interesting one. I can't think of caselaw that indicates that the timing matters or not, but please feel free to cite some.
since "fair use" is a catch-all for several scenarios in which you can legally use copyrighted content without the owner's permission (parody/satire, brief excerpt for the purpose of commentary/criticism, etc.), which defense applies here?
This is an incorrect view of fair use.
Fair use applies to any sort of use of a copyrighted work, which but for fair use would be infringing, and which is fair. I know this sounds like a tautology, but there it is. There is a four-factor test as to whether a use is fair or not, which we'll get into shortly. That's really what matters. True, there is a list of examples in the statute, but it's really meaningless: It's not an exhaustive list of all types of fair use, and the types of uses listed are not necessarily fair. While it was meant to provide guidance, the list of uses has turned out to only cause serious confusion. I strongly encourage you to ignore it completely.
One of the criteria for "fair use" is how much of the original work you re-used -- if your online review of The Dark Knight links to a 10-second clip that you posted to show that the fight scenes are kick-ass, that might be OK, but a 30-minute excerpt would not be. But if we apply that logic to the use of a copyrighted character, in a story you're either using someone else's copyrighted character, or you're not. Given that characters are protected by copyright at all, it doesn't make much sense to talk about "using 0.5% of a character", the way that a 30-second clip would constitute only 0.5% of a 100-minute movie. It certainly wouldn't make sense in the case of Kahn's remake, where the copyrighted Power Rangers characters are onscreen in every single scene.
For those reading along, the four factor test is:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The key thing to bear in mind is that the test is not to be applied in a strictly mathematical way; it's really just a tool to provide guidance for the ultimate question of: Is the use fair?
Fair uses have been found when most of the factors weigh against it. And the four factors are not the only factors worth considering; courts must consider them, but can also consider additional factors if they like, with no rules as to what those factors are.
In any case, you're looking at the 'amount and substantiality of the portion used' in too mechanical a fashion. Remember, the copyright for a character is really all about the details that go into describing the character. What does he look like? What clothes does he wear? What sort of method of speaking does he have? What kinds of behavior are typical for him? And so forth.
For example, if the character in question were Harry Potter, the character would be used less if, for instance, his scar did not appear, or there were no mention of his crappy home life. Those aren't the only traits that define the character, obviously, but the fewer you use, the more likely it is that you're engaged in fair use. (New traits made up by the user, which do not appear in the original work don't matter, btw; so if you add fluency in Magical Esperanto, it doesn't weigh against fair use, since it never arises in Rowling's books or in the movies)
Again, I haven't seen anything involving Power Rangers, but if it's just that the characters are dressed in similar outfits and otherwise bear no relation to the originals, this would indicate that relatively little of the characters were used.
And of course, remember that even if 100% of a work is used, it can still be fair use, under the right circumstances. Instances of time shifting and space shifting have been found to be fair uses, and they use all of the work.
The director's defenders rightly pointed out the absurdity of Vimeo removing the short film just hours after giving it a "Staff Pick" award
It doesn't sound absurd to me. Whether it has artistic merit has no connection to whether it's legal. The silent movie Nosferatu is a classic but infringed on the copyright of the novel Dracula. Luckily, while the courts ordered the film destroyed, one copy survived, and we have that to thank for the preservation of the film.
Presumably they had heard of the Power Rangers and knew that the movie was using the characters without permission.
There's no central registry of copyright registrations, assignments, and licenses. There probably should be, but there isn't. How would Vimeo know that the filmmakers didn't have permission? They could've gotten the rightsholder to grant them an oral or implied license, and there would be no way for Vimeo to distinguish that from them having no license at all. It's not Vimeo's job to know these things, and usually they're in no position to find out. Requiring rightsholders to search for infringements is the best way to go.
Moreover, there's not just a legal argument against an unauthorized "gritty reboot" of the Power Rangers, there's a moral one as well.
No there's not. There is no moral aspect to copyright; it's amoral and utilitarian. Though if pressed, I would say that it is more moral to create and publish works than it is to prohibit the creation and publication of works (particularly if it's just about money).
Well in the case of civilians, you are in a special situation when you have access to classified data. You agree not to release it on penalty of criminal charges and you do so explicitly to be granted access. If you aren't ok with the restrictions, then you don't agree, and don't get clearance. Normal people like us aren't under any such restrictions, which is why the press doesn't get in trouble publishing it. They never agreed to shit.
As such it could be a situation where even if they agree it was just, it was still illegal.
The number of grammatical cases is irrelevant. Question: What's the difference between a grammatical case without stem changes and a postposition (opposite of a preposition? Answer: A space.
That which is challenging, apart from stem changes, is the same thing that is challenging with helper words in general: when to use what with what. Picture a person learning English and trying to remember what to use with what. "I was scolding her.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" "We were unhappy.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" "She was dedicated.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" And so forth. It's the same for people trying to learn which declension case to use in which context. But if the declensions are just suffixes without stem changes, then they're no different from postpositions. And often stem changes where they occur follow pretty predictable rules, often for pronunciation reasons.
He's leaked a lot of things. So even if the jury agreed that some of it was justified, a situation where the public's need to know outweighed his promise to keep it secret, they could rule that on other things that wasn't the case. It isn't the sort of thing that would have to be taken as part and parcel.
As you said though, even in cases that people feel are justified, he still might be held guilty. The agreement regarding classified information you undertake doesn't have exemptions, it doesn't say "You agree to keep this secret unless you think the public needs to know," it is pretty cut and dried. So even if the jury believes he did the right thing, they very well could find him guilty because he still broke the law.
I'm sorry, but I agree with that. If you on the UK want us to dam up our rivers and build roads out to geothermal areas and tap into our resources, and raise our local power prices in the process, all for the benefit of the UK, our government better damn well profit as much as possible from it and reduce our taxes / improve our services in exchange for that.
Unfortunately, xB and xD do not agree.
Readily replaceable intakes?
Seriously, fuck the fish.
Better negotiate the contract during a Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn / Framsóknarflokkurinn (conservative) government. Samfylkingin would approve it under the condition that the Icelandic government's share of the sales are so high that you would barely save any money on the imported power, and Vinstri Grænir would outright reject it no matter what you offered. But Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn and Framsóknarflokkurinn would let you dam up whatever rivers you want and take gigawatts of power in exchange for a handful of shiny trinkets and a couple magic beans.
For whatever reason, the games industry has decided that these things are amazin' and everyone has to do it. Of course nobody is doing it, I mean Occulus has a prototype out that has some pretty major issues and no release date for final hardware but that's it. Everyone else doesn't even have any hardware at all.
So of course what companies lack in deliverables they make up in hype. Talk about how damn cool their shit will be, how the world will be changed, etc, etc. Particularly since it doesn't seem any of them have a solution to any of the issues. Most of the things aren't solved by magic, but by better technology which is being developed by other companies. Things like latency/refresh are largely going to be a combination of higher speed displays and faster GPUs to drive them. Well, those will get developed I'm sure, but by Samsung or LG, not by Occulus or Valve.
Valve has also been having some problems in this area as of late. They seem to wish to become more than just "the guys who run Steam" which makes sense, because Steam is super profitable but also unstable, people could migrate to a different store en masse for various reasons. However their "no bosses" organization means that a lot of playing happens and not as much delivering. So you see hype and noise, but not necessarily final products.
The Steam box is a good example. Heard lots about that for a long time, some hype videos about their controller, and yet nothing is on the market, and there is no date when anything might happen.
And how do we know that the real benefit doesn't come from hitting yourself with birch branches?
zblockquote>See: Cabin_Pressurization [wikipedia.org]
A person needs at least 20kPa *from the mask to breathe*. Not 20kPa *ambient pressure*. Please learn to read.
The "problematic loading on the capsules" is from the high speed aerodynamics, not the ambient pressure
Aerodynamic loading = pressure. If you have high loadings, you have high pressures. Period.
Are you talking about what I was talking about? I was talking about an electric motor, not a fuel-driven one.
What sort of claim is that? Since when do oxygen masks need 20kPa to function? And secondly, if there's "problematic loading on the capsules" from too much pressure on the pressure-compromised capsule, then your pressure is also way too high inside. Which means that you've repressurized the tube way too much. So the solution is: Don't do that!
Branching at full speed is probably not possible with the Hyperloop as designed; the skis are curved to match the diameter of the tube, with a ~1mm clearance with the tube surface, so there is no passive tube design that could accommodate a "switch". In order to continue from Section A to either Section B or Section C, you'd have to make an intermediate length of tube several hundred meters long that could be physically moved at one end from B to C, with sub-millimeter precision
Wait, meaning that while it's technically possible, but it'd be really tricky to accomplish? Gee, I wish I had written something like "Branching would be really tricky, but there's no physical barriers" at the top of my post
The reason is threefold: drag continues to increase at higher speeds regardless of the speed of sound
Drag is reduced in the first place by using hydrogen even at a given pressure. And you can use 1/4th the pressure and still maintain lift because you're moving four times as fast. And given how few reboosts are needed from LA to SF in the base case, a few more per unit distance hardly seems limiting.
If you consider that the steel Hyperloop pipe draped across 30m-spaced pylons will approximate a vertical sine wave, then at 700mph the allowable sag is only about 5cm
Irrelevant because earthquakes impose far more deflection that you have to be able to counter (and that the proposal calls for countering) than a craft moving past.
Mechanical braking from 1500mph in the event of an emergency is also a non-starter
What, you're picturing drum brakes or something? You're moving at high speeds in a giant steel tube. Magnetic braking couldn't possibly be easier.
a 700mph capsule will incur about 2g's of aerobraking deceleration
Where are you getting this from? Even if the tube was instantly full pressure (which it wouldn't be), a streamlined shape will not experience 2Gs at 700mph, any more than a passenger jet losing full engine power does. And anyway, 10g horizontal is not fatal even if that was the case. The average untrained individual, properly restrained, can tolerate 10g for a minute without even loss of cognitive function.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
