Legal issues and parodys
- Thread starter FatBird19
- Start date
TwistedLincoln
Veteran
You'll likely get better results posting this in one of the "Filmmaking" forums.
That said, here are my thoughts:
As I understand it, Parody falls under "Fair Use," so one can usually poke fun at a copyrighted work and not have issues. However I recall reading that there is a distinction between Parody and Satire -- Parody being when you make fun of a specific work, and Satire being when you use part or all of a specific work to poke fun of something else. Satire doesn't always fall under Fair Use.
Disclaimer: I have not, and never will be a lawyer. Ask a real one before doing anything that could get you sued. Or, at the very least, don't blame me...
That said, here are my thoughts:
As I understand it, Parody falls under "Fair Use," so one can usually poke fun at a copyrighted work and not have issues. However I recall reading that there is a distinction between Parody and Satire -- Parody being when you make fun of a specific work, and Satire being when you use part or all of a specific work to poke fun of something else. Satire doesn't always fall under Fair Use.
Disclaimer: I have not, and never will be a lawyer. Ask a real one before doing anything that could get you sued. Or, at the very least, don't blame me...
Cam-Ra said:You'll likely get better results posting this in one of the "Filmmaking" forums.
That said, here are my thoughts:
As I understand it, Parody falls under "Fair Use," so one can usually poke fun at a copyrighted work and not have issues. However I recall reading that there is a distinction between Parody and Satire -- Parody being when you make fun of a specific work, and Satire being when you use part or all of a specific work to poke fun of something else. Satire doesn't always fall under Fair Use.
Disclaimer: I have not, and never will be a lawyer. Ask a real one before doing anything that could get you sued. Or, at the very least, don't blame me...
Thanks.
Yeah, I couldn't think of where to place this thread very well, so I just put it where I knew everyone would see it. :beer:
So if I understand what you mean(and again, you're not a lawyer, so I should check this officially), is that I can try to immitate Napoleon Dynamite but I can't.....what now?.......Satire?
ie. if I stole some parts of Napoleon Dynamite to poke fun at Pat Robertson, then that would be illegial?
I think I'd need a more formal definition.
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)
cinemakinoeye
Well-known member
FatBird19 said:
As far as U.S. law goes, What is "Fair Use" in Copyright Law? states the following:
"Fair use" is use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research or parody. Fair use is not an infringing use. There are four factors used in determining whether the activities constitute copyright infringement or fair use: Purpose and character of use, nature of the copyrighted work, amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect of the use upon the market.
And What Is Fair Use? from the Stanford University Libraries states:
Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: commentary and criticism; or parody [...] A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to "conjure up" the original.
I can't offer legal advice, I'm a filmmaker, not a lawyer, however, one piece of legal advice I'll offer is that if you have any plans of serious distribution for your film, you should include as part of your team an entertainment lawyer on a consulting as-needed basis.
Zack Birlew
Veteran
Why in the world would you go ahead and make fun of Napoleon Dynamite again? Date Movie probably did the extent of that already along with the SNL skits that have been done already.
Legally though, I'm unsure whether that's okay to do. Take for instance a recent film contest my college recently had. They showed the rejected films at school on a Sunday night after the film festival where the accepted films were taken. There was one film that was okay in all respects and was funny, but it "borrowed" a lot of its jokes from previous works, one of which being a scene from Napoleon Dynamite where, if I remember correctly, he was playing basketball on his own in a weird way. There was no disclaimer at the beginning or end of the movie and there was no "Strictly for Film Festival purposes" thing either, so I'm pretty sure because he'd stolen a lot of jokes and even the camera placement on some of them, he didn't get in.
For online videos, what I see most people doing is putting a "This is strictly a non-profit or fan film meant for creative filmmaking purposes"-thing at the beggining or end of the film/short. But yeah, I would definitely talk to an entertainment lawyer first.
Legally though, I'm unsure whether that's okay to do. Take for instance a recent film contest my college recently had. They showed the rejected films at school on a Sunday night after the film festival where the accepted films were taken. There was one film that was okay in all respects and was funny, but it "borrowed" a lot of its jokes from previous works, one of which being a scene from Napoleon Dynamite where, if I remember correctly, he was playing basketball on his own in a weird way. There was no disclaimer at the beginning or end of the movie and there was no "Strictly for Film Festival purposes" thing either, so I'm pretty sure because he'd stolen a lot of jokes and even the camera placement on some of them, he didn't get in.
For online videos, what I see most people doing is putting a "This is strictly a non-profit or fan film meant for creative filmmaking purposes"-thing at the beggining or end of the film/short. But yeah, I would definitely talk to an entertainment lawyer first.
If you plan on putting your work online, you may also want to look into international copyright issues. There may be different concepts or understandings of "fair use" in other countries. I know of at least one case where the operator of a German website was sued (for a small amount but still) by Sony over the use of an excerpt (some 20 seconds) from a song of one of their artists in combination with a flash animation which was supposed to be funny/a parody. Sony was not amused and the guy ended up paying. I'm no lawyer either, but I would strongly suggest to get advice from one.
FatBird19 said:We're going to give it ooonnnne more shot.
Go for it. A good parody is a good parody. Who can say when a particular subject has no more legs? I saw a recent parody of Star Trek. It's still funny.
Actually my friend went to film school with the guys who produced Napoleon dynamite. I think they're in the Philippines right now. PM for contact info...
I'
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
Er, they also protect everything for independent filmmakers. You'll understand that once your footage has been stolen/infringed upon...FatBird19 said:
Justyn
Veteran
Very true on that one Barry. Happened to a good friend of mine... He gave the rights up to a producers rep he trusted.. the guy then changed the title, sold it to another distributor, cashed the check, declared bankruptcy with his company.. and to this day (4 years later) my buddy has never got one dime.. and his video is available on netflix, blockbuster, hollywood rental as well as online for download... That just sucks....
Also a good reason for putting window burns on all of your stuff until you get the check!!!!
This was a great thread by the way. Thanks for the dictionary notes. I've also always known that satire and parady is a way to sugar-coat tougher issues and criticism... plus it's a great way to get better production value and content familiarity..
I think that the only time you run into gray area would be usage of music from the piece, clips, etc.
What's everyones opinion on using that kind of media from the source? I know that doing a complete parady where you create everything yourself is cool and okay.. but what about those elements- like that music from the gay cowboy movie? Seems like everyone has used it on some paradoy or another.. That might be the only murky area....
Also a good reason for putting window burns on all of your stuff until you get the check!!!!
This was a great thread by the way. Thanks for the dictionary notes. I've also always known that satire and parady is a way to sugar-coat tougher issues and criticism... plus it's a great way to get better production value and content familiarity..
I think that the only time you run into gray area would be usage of music from the piece, clips, etc.
What's everyones opinion on using that kind of media from the source? I know that doing a complete parady where you create everything yourself is cool and okay.. but what about those elements- like that music from the gay cowboy movie? Seems like everyone has used it on some paradoy or another.. That might be the only murky area....
cinemakinoeye
Well-known member
Justyn said:
In most cases involving murly areas of the law, judges often look to what the "best practices" or "commonly accepted practices" are in a particular industry. There's been a chill in the air lately about violating copyright laws, partially brought on by the many lawsuites brought on by the MPAA and RIAA.
And while this does not apply directly to narrative work, you might find some useful guidelines in the article "Doc-makers get specific about copyright fair use." Author Steve Behrens writes that things have changed for documentary producers who need to use somebody else’s footage or music in their films. He reports that on Nov. 18th the Association of Independent Video and Filmmakers, the Independent Documentary Association, public TV’s Independent Television Service and the series P.O.V., and other media groups endorsed a Statement of Best Practices defining four kinds of situations when a producer, under the “fair use” provisions of copyright law, need not pay for a film clip, a shot of a painting or a snatch of music. Good article.
Barry_Green said:
yeah, i guess.
i think there should be a special amendment rule though:
"any filmmaker who has less than $4000 in his account and is not using copyrighted material for financial gain may do whatever he wants with said copyrighted material without the fear of being sued/thrown in jail/thrown out of college and thereby ruining his future...."
bahh!!
As a lawyer, who is not dumb enough to give legal advice over the internet, I highly recommend "Clearance and Copyright" by Michael C Donaldson. 2nd edition. It has a good "fair use" explanation. This was required reading when i was in school. It also provides boiler plate releases and other useful forms. Great Book! In addition, I would also speak with a qualified attorney during development. Hope this is helpful.
"First kill all the lawyers" William Shakespeare
"First kill all the lawyers" William Shakespeare
Last edited:
Justyn said:
haha. Including me. I made a Brokeback Mountain parody that I put on the internet a month or two ago. So far it's recieved about 1000 hits. Maybe I should take it down. :/
That is a good question though. There are about 6 Brokeback parodies that I can think of, the best of which I think is "Brokeback to the Future"(not mine unfortunately). The "Top Gun" one is pretty good too(not mine either).
Not only do a few of them use the music from Brokeback, but they use video clips exclusively from other films.
Is this a problem in the eyes of studio execs? There's no way they aren't aware of it by now.
Justyn
Veteran
crazy bizness we are in. Again some good info. I think I'll pick up that book and read those articles...
The one thing I think that is so unique now if that you go to a concert.. They say no flash photos and everyone in the crowd is shooting it on their phones.. recording it.. whatever. They now classify it as NO professional set-ups, but there is so much stuff going on and media rights managment that it's a changing all the time.
I found out through a local news organization.. that you do have the right to use footage on a location or an event until they ask you to leave... From there you do get into a pickle.. but up till that you can go and be on ya way with it.
I also think it's so funny that people recommend entertainment lawyers, but man sometimes I feel that I should be protected from them. They are lawyers after all and a lot of 'em I've met are shifty and out for themselves at the same time.
Bring on the common sense legal revolution! No reason it has to be so difficult to understand, interpret, navigate except to perpetuate the existance of lawyers and their gains... Sure there are good lawyers, but in my experience they are few and far between.
The one thing I think that is so unique now if that you go to a concert.. They say no flash photos and everyone in the crowd is shooting it on their phones.. recording it.. whatever. They now classify it as NO professional set-ups, but there is so much stuff going on and media rights managment that it's a changing all the time.
I found out through a local news organization.. that you do have the right to use footage on a location or an event until they ask you to leave... From there you do get into a pickle.. but up till that you can go and be on ya way with it.
I also think it's so funny that people recommend entertainment lawyers, but man sometimes I feel that I should be protected from them. They are lawyers after all and a lot of 'em I've met are shifty and out for themselves at the same time.
Bring on the common sense legal revolution! No reason it has to be so difficult to understand, interpret, navigate except to perpetuate the existance of lawyers and their gains... Sure there are good lawyers, but in my experience they are few and far between.
Barry_Green
Moderator
You have to be really careful with that. The rules for news crews are very different than the rules for commercial film producers! People control the right to their own images in commercial productions, but news coverage gets certain exemptions. For example, a news photog might get a shot of Tom Cruise walking into a Scientology center and be able to air that, but if you tried to pull a "Bowfinger" you'd find out real quickly that the same rules don't apply!Justyn said: