Copyrighted content used in a parody

M. Gilden

M. Gilden

Canon DSLR Moderator
I was recently asked to do a parody of the iconic iPhone Siri ad (found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcWzMTTde2M ) for a lecture series.

The style of shots will not be difficult to recreate, however to save time and money I was asked whether or not it would be permissible to use parts of the original ad.
My first inclination would be no, however it was brought to my attention that some parodies of this ad do exactly that. Such as this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eLELOBuT-Q

If it were just some youtube channel messing around, I wouldn't think anything of it. But this is collegehumor- their youtube channel is monetized (and we all know how Google is about questionable copyright infringement with their partner channels), and they seem like a pretty legit production studio (didn't they even have an MTV show?). This leads me to believe that there is some sort of legal loophole to use this in the form of a parody like that.

What do you guys think? Are you allowed to do this?
 
There is an exemption for parody/satire/etc.

As long as it is commenting on the original, that is, not just using the elements.

Then again, it's Apple, who sue sue for things like someone else making a rectangular tablet computer.
 
Fair use provides leeway for parody. I'm not going to go into detail about what the rest of the law requires since a search for that term along with 'parody' will give you a lot of excellent articles.
 
I'm not sure, but I think fair use permits using concepts for parody -- like doing a parody of "Star Wars", for instance -- but I highly doubt that includes using actual footage from the movie itself. Same would apply here, I think.

Best bet -- consult a qualified entertainment or intellectual property attorney.
 
Also note that it's not really fair use until a judge throws a case out of court; that means that automatic copyright enforcement, such as programs that identify music on Youtube, can still pull videos for infringement.
 
arroway said:
No, not for "parody/satire/etc", just for parodies. There is a legal distinction between parodies and satire. The latter are not covered.
Click to expand...

Note necessarily. Depends. And other lawyerly blather.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=satire%20copyright&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fapps.americanbar.org%2Flitigation%2Fcommittees%2Fintellectual%2Froundtables%2F0506_outline.pdf&ei=1KpFT53LKaOIsgKO0oTDDw&usg=AFQjCNFQHz4zcOu01nToc7kcJgb_6dr5hQ

Parody is safer and less murky, of course.
 
I'm not a lawyer so I can't say what's legal or not when it comes to a parody, but I think, in order to monetize (is it even a word btw?) a clip on YouTube you have to agree that it isn't using copyrighted material that you don't own.

I might be wrong, but if I'm not, even if you can use it for legal reasons on YouTube, CollegeHumor might not be able to make money from it.

Either way, if the shots are re-creatable anyway, I would personally do it just to sleep better at night just to know there isn't an apple lawyer looking into it.
 
Jawa Ex Machina said:
Either way, if the shots are re-creatable anyway, I would personally do it just to sleep better at night just to know there isn't an apple lawyer looking into it.
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't think "fair use" should be invoked just to protect from laziness. I can't imagine why any shot from an Apple commercial shouldn't be fairly easy to recreate.

I also don't think "fair use" should be invoked just to save money. Sure, it's cheaper to just rip the footage from the original commercial and put it in your project. But at the very least, it's not ethical. And it's probably not legal.

As has been mentioned before on similar threads, "fair use" isn't a standard, it's a legal defense. If you get to the point where you are arguing that you're covered by "fair use", you will already be in court and in the middle of what's likely to be a VERY expensive lawsuit. Is that a risk the OP is willing to take? Honestly.....is it worth it?

Taking footage from someone else's copyrighted work and using it in your own project is VERY shaky ground. If the OP is adamant about doing it, he'd better stop taking advice from people on the Internet and start talking to a qualified intellectual property attorney.
 
Barry_Green said:
"downfall". It uses the original footage...
Click to expand...
You mean those Hitler videos that parody the film Downfall and became a meme?

YouTube pulled all of them the other year if I recall. Every single one. The reason you can find them online again is (I believe) because the owners of the footage allows it now. Kind of like how Lucasfilm allows star wars fan films.

Not sure if any of them is monitized.
 
I don't understand why people continue to ask legal questions to filmmakers. Legal questions, by their very nature, involve potential risks to you financially and professionally. Are you willing to take those risks on the say-so of people who may or may not be properly versed in the law? I wouldn't.

I realize there are people here who have dealt with some legal issues in the course of their own business pursuits. But even their advice is anectdotal at best, and may or may not apply to your circumstances.

To me, it's like asking for medical advice. If you don't want to risk making an expensive, perhaps dangerous, mistake -- then ask a professional.
 
There is a lot of knowledgable (sp?) people on this board, so getting thieir opinion and advice on film making matters most often gives you the answers you need or point you in the right direction where the answers might be

I mean isn't that what makes forums (and the internet in general) awesome? The fact that you have access to much more people with their own life and business experience willing to help each other out
 
Saharanturtle said:
There is a lot of knowledgable (sp?) people on this board, so getting thieir opinion and advice on film making matters most often gives you the answers you need or point you in the right direction where the answers might be

I mean isn't that what makes forums (and the internet in general) awesome? The fact that you have access to much more people with their own life and business experience willing to help each other out
Click to expand...

The point is, are you willing to take legal and financial RISKS -- risks that could put you and your family on the streets or you in jail -- based on the advice of anyone other than a qualified attorney?
 
David W. Richardson said:
The point is, are you willing to take legal and financial RISKS -- risks that could put you and your family on the streets or you in jail -- based on the advice of anyone other than a qualified attorney?
Click to expand...

That's a bit overdramatic, isn't it?

I mean, its a youtube parody that we're talking about here. Worst case scenario is that it gets pulled by Google.

I think the average "qualified attorney" would laugh this out. There wouldn't be a 1,001 remixes of the shamwow commercial on youtube if this were that serious of a problem. However, my client is a religious man and does not want to infringe on anything for purely moral reasons (and as a film maker, I feel the same). So I'm curious as to how grey of an area this really is, and the community here seems a good place to start.

For the record, I think I'm going to recreate the scenes anyway, as it would help sell the gag to have specific people. I wonder about using the music, however. It seems that particular track is not even for sale to purchase (however it appears in the artist soundcloud account as well as posted by numerous youtube folks in its original uncut form). I've contacted the artist about permission to use it in a parody, however I have not heard back yet.
I still think this is far beyond what is required or even expected of a youtube parody.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top