Fair Use for Presentations? 68
Fubar asks: "The company I work for provides training 'workshops' to various folks in the finance industry. The folks who give the presentations during the workshops are considering adding short clips from various movies to help illustrate their points. In my searching, I have found evidence that basically seems to suggest the practice COULD be either a) fine or b) illegal. Not exactly the black & white answer I was hoping to find."
Interesting question... (Score:1)
I'm really interested in whatever the real answer to this question is because I do this sort of thing as well.
Re:Interesting question... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Interesting question... (Score:2)
One place I worked at, the lawyers basically said that it wasn't copyright infringement if we used copyrighted images on internal pages. The implication was that if the images went outside our company, it'd be verboten. Based on that, I'd say that if it's part of something you're selling, like a presentation, then it's probably not kosher.
Legit vs Non-Legit Usage (Score:4, Insightful)
If you are in an art history class, and were citing The Simpsons in their impact on culture in the Late 20th century, then use of images and clips to illustrate the point in this discussion about the Simpsons is fine and quite legit. You are likely not using an entire show, but might have clips of entire bits or segments.
On the other hand, if you are selling a product called BARFO, then the use of the Simpsons is not legitimate, as it is likely the use of a copyrighted image in the promotion of a product, without licensing.
Internal usage inside a company, such as a sales training manual, would probably pass because the danger of getting caught is low. This would probably be inside a single office.
External usage, say in the training of Vendors, or across a much larger campany area is probably in dangerous territory, probably because it is unlicensed usage, and the danger of getting caught is much higher. This brings to mind the phrase "not a career enhancing decision". Lawyers might get to know you well. This is not always a good thing
For an example, see this discussion of a classic cartoonist instruction book, where the first edition had to be changed in the second edition, so as not use well known characters of the day. The first edition used all famous characters, many of which you may recognise. Link one [blogspot.com] and Link two [blogspot.com]
These links are heavy with illustrations. which enlarge when you click on them.
Thus you could likely use simpson inspired characters, or simpson style characters,
Using the actual simpson characters in materials to be distributed outside the company into a semi-public or public area Is probably very bad. Similar to using them on a company website or blog, again, without permission.
Re:Legit vs Non-Legit Usage (Score:2)
Re:Legit vs Non-Legit Usage (Score:2)
Re:Seriously... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Seriously... (Score:2)
Unless she's cute. (Yes, I am speaking from experience here.)
I'd say just do it (Score:1)
Re:I'd say just do it (Score:2)
Re:I'd say just do it (Score:2)
No. No it isn't.
Educational use doesn't do anything to get "extended rights". Educational use is simply a part of one of the four determining factors to be considered when deciding whether something is fair use. You see, the tricky bit about fair use is that the law doesn't say what it is. It is up to the legal system (the courts) to decide fair use claims on a case-by-case basis. By now we've developed a small set of legal precedents, but s
OK, here's my fair use example (Score:5, Insightful)
Back in the day, I was teaching Java at the local community college. Every semester, I'd bring in "Fantasia" and show the Mickey Mouse as Sorcerer's Apprentice bit. Mickey would watch the sorcerer, who'd go off to bed, then Mickey would start the broomsticks filling the well, (dum da dadada dum da) things would get out of hand, and the broomsticks would split and split and split. Next thing you know, Mickey's afloat on the sorcerer's book, frantically turning pages, trying to figure out how to make it stop.
I'd pause the tape then, and after a long time starting at Mickey floating atop the book, I'd say:
"NOW he checks the docs."
Re:OK, here's my fair use example (Score:1)
Re:OK, here's my fair use example (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're nice to me, maybe I'll tell you the pot roast joke. Guaranteed programmers ROFL, because it's true, but said in a funny way.
Re:OK, here's my fair use example (Score:1)
Re:OK, here's my fair use example (Score:4, Funny)
The joke goes like this:
I leave you to figure out the moral of the story.
Re:OK, here's my fair use example (Score:2)
Re:OK, here's my fair use example (Score:3, Funny)
Nope. I quoted it from memory on the spot, adding my own embellishments. I waited around a good 10 minutes or before I start, just to make sure you weren't posting it. Then I went ahead and typed it up.
Next time, HURRY UP!
Re:OK, here's my fair use example (Score:2)
Agreed. Sorry, I mistook your <blockquote> for slash and paste.
Re:OK, here's my fair use example (Score:5, Insightful)
Damn, two of my best stories blown on one thread, no funny voices or inflections, just ASCII, but, OK, since you ask so nice, and I haven't been hammered by the "overrated" mod trolls yet:
There's a newlywed couple; he's watching her make dinner, and he asks:
"Why do you cut the end off the pot roast like that?"
And she says:
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".
And he says:
"Well, you don't have to cut the end of the pot roast off like that".
And she says:
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".
So they get into (their first) huge fight.
She calls her mom in tears and asks:
"Mom, why did you teach me to cut off the end of the pot roast like that?"
And her mom says
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".
And she says:
"Well, Jeff says you don't have to do it that way."
And her mom says:
"I've always done it that way, it has to be done that way, my mother taught me to do it that way".
Now, totally confused, the girl calls her gran, and asks:
"Gran, why did you teach my mom, and she taught me, to cut off the end of the pot roast like that?"
Her gran thinks for a minute and says:
"I don't have a pan that big".
Ba Dum Cha!
Just to spoil the joke by explaining it:
For those of you just joining us, the point would be something along the lines of:
"The workarounds of one generation become the religious dictums to the next generation."
Re:OK, here's my fair use example (Score:1, Interesting)
For example, the grandmother is totally superfluous in that story. The way I heard it, the mother delivers the punchline. No need for the extra stack frame. And there was a lot less crying, too.
I also think it's interesting that, about 10 years ago, the story would have been considered rather blatantly sexist. Times have changed.
Re:OK, here's my fair use example (Score:2)
Oh, forget the pot roast joke. Show us the Cardassian neck trick! I want the Cardassian neck trick! And then read me "Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie!"
Seriously, though, that's about the only way I can get through to /.'ers too is through jokes. And if that doesn't work, raving lunatic insanity sometimes works as well. It is particularly effective if I am at least slightly inebriated, like now.
Maybe yes, maybe no (Score:1)
No clear answer... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Is it 'necessary' in the sense that you need that clip to make a point? Remember that satire, commentary, and even artistic pieces are protected. If you need the clip to make your point, then it's probably okay (subject to the next two points)...
2. Is it a small usage? If you are showing only a small clip from a full movie (1%), then it's probably fine.
3. Is it commercial?
There will never be an iron-clad answer (that can only come out of a court decision). However if you seem to be "okay" with respect to 1, 2, and 3... I would guess that nearly any judge would not find you guilty of copyright infringement.
I also know that in Canada there are explicit exceptions for education. Thus, if it is for teaching you can make copies of a copyrighted work and distribute these to the class. The only requirement is that you properly log all your usage, and that there is no viable, available, commercial alternative that performs the exact same function. I'm not sure if something similar exists in the US.
The only people who will tell you that this is "obviously illegal" are those who are trying to exagerrate how extensive copyright really is. Of course, this is just my interpretation of the laws in question.
Re:No clear answer... (Score:2)
That is within an educational setting that is licenced by Access Copyright.
Fubar says "The company I work for provides training 'workshops' to various folks in the finance industry. The folks who give the presentations during the workshops are considering adding short clips from various movies to help illustrate their points."
This is
Re:No clear answer... (Score:2)
Re:No clear answer... (Score:2)
Re:No clear answer... (Score:2)
Re:No clear answer... (Score:1)
Re:No clear answer... (Score:2)
Actually, case was more or less like this - photographer has a picture of Mt. Hood overlooking Portland, and during the opening of a big mall here, it got blown up into a poster (believe by the mall folks) and the today show did a couple minute segment with the picture in the background.
Lawyer for the photographer called in and the conversation went like this.
"Hey, umm, you folks had one of my
Re:Poor Idea (Score:2)
I completely agree, I recently saw a presentation in which there was 3-4 clips used and very little of the original message was conveyed do to the heavy reliance on external content. Too much "illustration" can certainly distract from the true message.
I'd ask the companies you want to use stuff from. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I'd ask the companies you want to use stuff fro (Score:2)
Yes, this is so that the CEO of Dish Network can't go down to Best Buy, purchase a copy of a show just released to DVD, and then broadcast it to all his customers. The copyright holder of a DVD copy of a movie is granting you an explicit right to show it for private purposes: you can watch it all you want, you can even invite all your friends over and show it at your birthday party. In other words, the distribution license for the c
Re:I'd ask the companies you want to use stuff fro (Score:2)
The copyright holder of a DVD copy of a movie is granting you an explicit right to show it for private purposes
No. This is because there is no right within copyright to control private performances. The only performances copyright deals with are public performances. What actually happens is that the owner of the DVD can do anything lawful that he wants with it, whether he wants to use it as a frisbee or use it to watch the content within. No one owns the work itself. And the copyright doesn't touch
Here's an article to look at (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Here's an article to look at (Score:2)
Welcome to Copyright Law (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welcome to Copyright Law (Score:2, Insightful)
You forgot other options (Score:2, Interesting)
(c) Lazy
(d) If done badly - tasteless, irrelevant and a waste of time. Consider the SCO presentation near the very start of their linux IP claims which contained clips from a James Bond movie. In that presentation it was implied that Darl McBride was in some way similar to James Bond and the linux community was similar to the forces of evil in the movie. A presentation like this may look cool and funny to insiders but to outsiders (who may be in your aud
Fair use is only a legal defense (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the relevant section of the law:
As you can see, there is lots of room for interpretation - which, like most of the law, helps to keep the unemployment rate among lawyers very low.
Re:Fair use is only a legal defense (Score:2)
Actually it's not that wide as regards interpretation.
Unless your company is functioning as a non-profit, you are making money off their work, using it to illustrate point. So, you need their permission, which may or may not come with certain royalty payments needing to be made.
While the scope for written materials is fairly wide, because one can cite a small piece, generally speaking when it comes to visual elements, there tends to not be much latitude given, with the possible exception of academic work.
Simple. Read the bloody FBI warning on a DVD. (Score:2)
IAN
It's a needless risk and almost certainly illegal (Score:2)
You would be using someone else's work product in a commercial environment. You open your company up to serious copyright lawsuits and bad PR. It's not worth it. If you truly need footage to illustrate something, buy permission to use something that you can actually afford. Or find public domain footag
Of course it's unclear . . . (Score:2)
Only one possble answer to this: (Score:2)
you can do it til they catch you... (Score:1)
If you are in business and you are using it to get business, then pay up, don't be a dick.
I only know this... (Score:3, Informative)
These are ominous, deep and dark waters that you want to wade through. Get a lawyer, a very good lawyer.
Sera
Google about the TEACH Act (Score:1)
IANAL...
That's because (Score:1)
Theory and practice. (Score:3, Informative)
In practice, fair use is an incredibly fuzzy thing. If you can't pay or your company can't pay a team of lawyers to protect your fair use rights against the 800lb gorillas from Hollywood, then you better not do it.
Lawrence Lessig details this issue in his book [free-culture.cc]. Basically, even if it is a cut clear case of fair use, even then it is only clear cut as long as you have the lawyers to back that up. Lessig mentions the case when some documentary filmmaker was filming in a theatre and there was about 4 seconds of Simpsons caught on footage from a tv in the corner of the recorded picture. The guy who made the documentary wanted to clear rights for that 4 seconds, and the company who owns the rights to Simpsons demanded $10,000 (for something theoretically free under fair use). He couldn't even think about just using it anyway based on fair use, because the company he was making the documentary for had insured his production. It ment that lawyers would review the production and they would look for (among others) fair use parts, and if they didn't clear rights for those supposedly fair use parts from the copyright holder, they would most certainly never approve the production, because in their opinion it would carry too much of a risk factor.
So there you have it, theory and practice.
Don't look at is as legal vs illegal... (Score:2)
-Rick
Easier to get forgiveness than permission ... (Score:1)
nasa videos (Score:2)
Re:nasa videos (Score:1)
Pop quiz (Score:2)
A) Go to that great legal authority on the net, known as Slashdot
or
B) Hire a fscking lawyer
I'll give you a hint