A problem with Fair Use is that it can only be determined in court. Even with a lawyer and even ticking all the boxes for Fair Use, you could end up in court and it won't be a sure thing that you will win. If you don't have the money to take it to court, it could be a big problem.
Only those with coin, connections, crews, clout, computer code, control, communities, and opportunities will prevail and succeed. Else... you ain't *nothin'*! 😂
While it may seem straightforward, it isn’t as clear as it could be. The original commenter is correct in that fair use is actually determined in court. However, as you said, it is doubtful cases even get to court. Part of the reason why cases don’t go to court is because of precedent. If a company sues and argues against fair use of their IP and loses the case, then precedent is set in court and can be upheld in other cases. Most cases are not taken to court also because there are plenty of loopholes copyright owners can use to ensure that any money you make off of your fair use is diverted to them. With threats of legal action, taking some (if not all) of the money you make from your fair use work, as well as settling cases out of court, precedent is not set, thus preventing any future protections for those who employ fair use in their work.
@@Vanced-ii3bj Maybe so, but often the THREAT of court deters people from fair use. I know this through experience. I had a video on UA-cam taken down (wrongly) for copyright. I had to take it up with the lawyer who struck it and told them the video was cut-and-dried fair use and they threatened to take it to court. I told them that was fine and was prepared for that (I was bluffing) and my video got put back up.
We wouldn't have nearly so many problems with copyright and lawsuits if we went back to the original fourteen years, with fourteen more years if renewed, then everything goes to the public domain, like it should have always been.
Tbh I see this as a double edged sword. It does protect the income of authors. If you've spent a significant time writing a book series, you might still believe when someone decides to write a sequel, or publish all your books and earn money off them without you getting a dime. It would be great if it was possible for them to change the law to target media companies, with no one company able to hold copyright for more than a certain period of time.
Matt Johnson’s loophole-jumping skills led to one of my favorite jokes in Nirvanna The Band The Show. They started out wanting to cap off a big moment at the end of an episode with John Cena’s entrance music and worked back from there until their lawyer gave the thumbs-up that it was sufficiently integral to the plot, which is to say that Matt’s character reassured his friend “I’m gonna hit ‘em with the John Cena” before running into an active gunfight yelling “AND HIS NAME IS JOHN CENA”
Yeah. It seems like a gentleman’s agreement between the studios. No one wants they’re properties used without permission so they just don’t do it. Maybe they also just don’t want to promote other studios stuff.
I'm a huge Matt Johnson fan. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that using the fair use stuff really grounds the story. I've wondered why Nirvanna The Band The Show clicks with me so deeply, and I think that's absolutely a huge part of it. I'll bet Matt Johnson gets an Oscar nom within the next 5 years.
He's spot on with the "uncanny valley" feeling most movies and shows have from avoiding featuring IPs they don't own, like characters obviously talking around using common phrases like "my iphone" or "google it", websites or busy downtown streets having zero marketing material in sight or corny things like going to fictional burger places because they're too scared to put McDonalds in there or teenagers watching 90 year old movies (or Night Of The Living Dead half the time) because they're out of copyright and not just the latest thing on Netflix that kids actually watch.
@@CuteKiller313 Yeah, it makes dated movies/shows feel like the creator's best guess of what life was like then without having experienced it. It makes for a less immersive and authentic story.
The one that bugs me the most is when dudes are sitting on the couch playing a video game with controllers in hand but when you catch a glimpse of the tv screen it's some generic nonsense image cooked up just for the shot, not even a real game.
Matt Johnson is hilarious. The website that their original webshow Nirvana The Band The Show used to have SO MUCH copyrighted material on it just hidden in plain sight. Like you could click parts of the screen and it would just start playing some Hollywood action movie from the 80’s (in its entirety). I love that they found a way to enshrine his love of abusing copyrighted media.
@@purplevampireanime and i do too, very often, like listening to extensive videos about a single topic, but getting to the point in less time has way more value in my book
The problem is people throw around the concept of “fair use” like it’s magic words, or an automatic get-out-of-jail free card. Obviously there are limits to how the principle can be used, and I’d like to hear more about that. Otherwise I think people can walk away with a distorted understanding of the concept, which isn’t the miracle solution it’s often presented as.
A good way to think of "fair use" is when you're using a short clip, quote from a book, or snippet of information to prove, verify, or comment on a POINT. 🙂 For example, if you're like: "Here in this clip of Jackie Chan's 'Supercop', he's doing X, Y, and Z. But in most Hollywon't films, we don't see these things. And why is that? Well, for one thing... ...", etc. However, if you're using clips in order to *BE* your content, that's a really good way to (possibly) place yourself in the crosshairs of some litigiously active company.
Yeah .. I don't think this video did that . Carefully making sure to mention the lawyer more than once, to me dispels the fast cheap or easy miracle thinking. But filmmakers are always finding a creative path .. I like that they just highlight this one tool in a positive way. It sounded more like with enough care you could walk on lava too.. lol
The problem is, none of this guarantees the filmmakers stay out of court. Even if your fair use case is rock solid, any one of those IP holders can still decide to take you to court. And if their pockets are deeper than yours they could easily crush you financially while still losing the case.
I'm not a lawyer, but I did study copyright law a bit for my masters in arts admin. I'm sorry to say, this does not match my understanding of fair use. You do not need a strong narrative reason for including copyright protected material. It just needs to be transformative. The problem, as others have mentioned, is that our legal system is structured to benefit the giant multi-national corporations that have consolidated huge swaths of pop culture IP. Film makers don't avoid using copyright protected IP in their films because it's illegal. They avoid it because they could get sued by a giant IP troll and run out of money before they were able to prove what they did was legal. It's never a question of what is legal. It's always a question of how much risk you are willing to take on.
Yeah, I'm no expert, but I did have to look carefully at the subject of fair use for my UA-cam channel and I was kind of baffled by this video because it did not fit my understanding of fair use at all. The fact that they used a lawyer made me think maybe I was wrong but your comment reassured me.
strong narrative reason=necessary for this new, different story=transformative. this matt johnson guy has talked about the same thing in interviews, they did this on nirvana: the band: the show also. the video probably doesnt explain it perfectly, but if you want to dig he has elaborated on it before.
You're completely wrong. Whether a work is transformative is only one factor of many used to evaluate fair use. Kindly delete or edit your comment. The world is filled with enough BS.
@@seigeengine You missed the bit where he said "but" after stating "I'm not a Lawyer". Obviously the "but" proves that he knows the actual facts. It is the same way I got a job as a Surgeon, I said in the interview "I am not a Surgeon, but I did study butchery for a few years so I know a lot about anatomy."
They didn’t “use Fair Use” to make this movie. They risk getting sued for copyright infringement and the Fair Use doctrine does not prevent anyone from launching a lawsuit. It is a defense, once in court, not permission. So at the very MOST, the makers of this film are brave to hope that no property used in the film wastes their time and money with a lawsuit.
Great Video! I've heard Fair Use get thrown around ever since High School Media Arts class. Glad to finally see a connection to Narrative Filmmaking. I'm using copyrighted music in the film I'm currently making. Since it's going on UA-cam only (and I wouldn't be making money on it anyway), I'm experimenting with the freedom to not worry about copyright at this stage in my filmmaking journey. But! I love the idea of the Media being "integral to the story." Makes for a much more meaningful implementation of said Media. I will be thinking about that going forward for future films, and even as I am finishing this current project. Thanks Alex!
Hey uh, i'm not an expert, but it's my understanding that getting demonetized is not the only thing you should worry about when using copyrighted material for a UA-cam video; whoever owns that material can also apply to take down the video entirely. Be careful out there! i wish you success.
1:07 not me recognizing that that prototype is made out of an original gameboy based off the screen and bottom shell piece… Although to be fair I do repair them for a living so I think it’s a good thing I recognized the components instantly
I’m doing similar things with various works I’m in the middle of, and I hope it becomes more commonplace. Not because I want constant IP mashups, but because it’s authentic and honest to us as human beings.
I think something very important has been left out, which is why most movies don't take advantage of this: it's meant for educational works only. The "transformative" and "integral to the story" parts of the requirements are referring to works communicating a specific piece of information or history in which said copyrighted works absolutely have to be mentioned in order to explain said information or event. The movies mentioned in the video are documentaries or at least dramatization/fictionizations of real events. Any form of fiction that isn't based strictly around a real person/event is practically incapable of using fair use for the simple fact that how integral something is to the work is up to the author, and since it isn't real or based on anything real, the court, and whoever is the proper owner, can argue that it isn't integral and you can simply write it out. And as plenty of other comments have already stated, fair use isn't a guarantee, and depends on the court's interpretation. Yeah its a long paragraph... I liked this video, it explained everything quite well (and in a short concise amount of time).But I think it failed to explain exactly why fair use isn't used more, which is something I think should have been brought up. TL;DR: Most movies don't use fair use because fair use is meant primarily for a specific category of movie, and in many instances fair use isn't even guaranteed to work.
this comment is all just completely incorrect. parodies like the music of Weird Al and Scary Movie are able to use copyrighted work because of fair use, and they are in no way educational. fair use has four components, and one of those is the purpose for using copyrighted work. in many cases, a derivative work being educational is a use purpose that can be used to argue fair use, but there are plenty of reasons for using a copyrighted work that are acceptable for totally different reasons.
@@avrilsegoli Thanks for bringing up those examples, I completely forgot about parodies. They're able to fall under fair use not because of being informative, but by being an example of using free-speech (conveying its creator's thoughts and opinions on a specific subject). I'm not sure whether it comes across this way or not, but I don't believe education is the one and only way to use fair use, but I believe it is the primary type of work (along with parody) that can actually justify its need in the court of law. I would like to ask (and I'm not asking to debate or anything): What other reasons, besides education and parody, have people managed to use copyrighted material and have it fall under fair use? It genuinely intrigues me. Thus far, the two already mentioned above were the only ones I ever came across.
To be clear, while using other's copyrighted material for educational purposes does tilt the table, it is not a guarantee something is fair use, nor is it required for fair use.
3:22 Felt this way about the "support group" scene in Wreck-It Ralph that was used for the film's teaser. Played off the idea that games might be referenced in the film, however it was pretty much just that scene (and a few non-arcade cameos outside of the scene that didn't make sense in the world they built).
Just remember that major platforms like youtube have shown consistently that they do not care about fair use at all, and will side with literally anyone who copyright claims your video. Also, some companies will engage in "lawfare" which means they will still file a lawsuit against you, even if they know they will not ultimately win. The goal is to wear you down using the time, and primarily, the COST of defending yourself in court. They don't win LEGALLY, they win DE FACTO because they have more money and can just keep taking you to court. They are a big company, you are just a guy. You run out of money, they don't.
0:19 That is not Virtua Fighter LOL. That's a game called Martial Masters, released by IGS in 1999. It's pretty obscure though, so I won't blame you for not getting the ID.
gaaah, my bad. Thanks for letting me know! Odd how Martial Masters wasn't listed in the end credits, Virtua Fighters was the only fighting game there so I made the assumption :/
I absolutely love how far this channel has come since I started watching the Arnold video back in the day. You kill it on every single video man!!! I eagerly await the Every Jackie Chan film review (Watch the original cut of Police Story 2 plz and ty it's way less boring AND has better music)
I always though that the only way to force companies to accept fair use is by doing corporeal punishment to copyright enforcers, but apparently you can lawyer your way out... I still think they should be scared of false copyright strikes leading to public humiliation and pain so they wont abuse it.
The moment a lawyer is needed as an extra consultant the costs go up fast. People use non brands for cost effective reasons the vast majority of the time. But I agree ... It's a tool that is there, it should be utilized more :)
Staying alive was completely narratively integrated in The Office, but at the end of the day The Office legal team just made a deal to avoid court hearings. So it's hard to believe that practice would be common.
Amazing, amazing video. Thank you for this. But whoa whoa whoa, let's pump the brakes on harsh Ready Player One critiques as that movie is lowkey about Spielberg coming to grips with his immeasurable impact on pop culture using IPs he was around for the creation of. Sort of like a S-tier studio-backed fair use movie
Companys can still sue you though, or threaten to do so, and you will never have enough money to argue that what you did is fair use. It's completely useless. The argument at the end makes no sense. Fair use doesn't force filmmakers to make interesting art, the threat of violence copyright law poses didn't make the movie good, the commentary on culture and authentic depiction of it did. We would have more of these stories if you didn't have to write them with a lawyer or fear being sued for millions and having your life ruined. Copyright is the enemy of art and must go, culture belongs to all of us, not a few billionaires.
What if, in order to explain someone else's copyrighted work from end to end, you have to reproduce it from end to end, with additional material intercut, superimposed, voiced over, or side by side? Like a DVD commentary reel of someone else's DVD? It seems amazing that you could use the whole thing in a way that viewers who were interested in only the original could view that way with minimal distraction, yet it seems impossible to adequately explain without doing so, or alternatively providing sync signals for the viewer to have another player going in parallel. Chris Huth has recently been hosting discussion panels for _Lost_ on his UA-cam channel (The Huth Truth) in which he has some entries consisting of after-viewing panel discussions, and others with his commentary synchronized to an instruction to a viewer to start playing a _Lost_ installment. It'd be so much more convenient for him to be able to just add commentary on top of the original on UA-cam. We understand that UA-cam has its own rules on content usage that are stricter than the law allows in the USA and probably other countries, and that they'd like to maintain good relationships with both the big and few, and small and many, content providers, and that the compromise isn't easy. Friends have suggested I provide my own video explanations of _Lost_ -- as a friend of the show runner since he was a teenager, I have a special perspective -- but it really would require not only the use ot practically the whole of the serial, but of other copyrighted unacknowledged (but implicit) source material such as the British detective series _Department S_ as well as much public domain matter. For instance, how could the audience "get" the resemblance of the music and graphics of _Lost_ to that of _Department S_ unless side by side?
I think a more accurate thing to say is that “they have not been sued because of fair use… not yet anyway.” It really is up to the court of law whether they broke the law or not, and it’s honestly quite subjective to know if what you did qualifies as under fair use or not. They’re on thin ice if for some reason the big wig companies want to go after “the little guy” to prove a point.
I think the quality and message of the film is also a big factor in companies deciding whether or not to sue. If this was Human Centipede? I think companies might have a longer look. With BlackBerry its just a great commercial for the things you used to love.
I know it might not be a "fair use" example but I love how show Sugar uses old movies as a view into how main character perceives himself through the lens of his passion for movies. It would be worse show without it.
How does this apply to unauthorized biographies. If I wanted to make a docu-drama about Captain Kangaroo… what can I get away with using? People publish unauthorized biographies all the time. I just don’t know the limits.
But is it based on the copyright laws that the media originated in (ie is copyrighted in) or those of the country where the new (transformative) media is created? I understand Canada doesn’t even have a fair use law, although it does have ‘fair dealings’ which is similar.
1 ok now i need to watch this movie and 2 I never thought of movies using fair use. I've seen tv use this in the form of references, sometimes they show a clip of a movie in a show, or have the audio playing in the background or something. But this is a whole different story!
Great video! Fair Use is why Weird Al Yankovic has outlasted so many of the music acts he's parodied over the decades. Haven't seen Blackberry yet but excited to watch it now
I may be wrong(not a lawyer myself) but what I have always heard is that you can basically use any product, clip etc as long as you are not directly making money from it. If your whole story is Mickey Mouse teaming up with someone, that's no longer free use because you are specifically using their IP to make money. And it can't be claimed that it is essential to the story because clearly that is a choice that you made and could change - a movie like this is basically using it as set dressing so you can't sub something else for it as it wouldn't make sense. So ultimately any movie could have their character drinking Coke and eating McDonald's but most don't because why are you going to give them free advertising? That's why most want product placement and licensing deals, makes them money.
You don't really go into details of how one would use that legally. I mean they could still take you to court even if you dot your i's and cross your t's. They can also be as broad or as narrow as they need to effectively sue your pants off.
I’m reporting g this video for breaking copyright laws! /s seriously I hate how the DCMA takedown requests are too easy on UA-cam, but actually harder to go after films for unlawful use of copyright
Matt prolly also needed a lawyer to make sure that the real people depicted in the Blackberry movie won't sue him for making a almost completely fictional movie just with real people's names😂😂
neutral or positive references under a certain length like these are almost always undisputed. why would companies not want free marketing? problems start when the owner of an IP feels like hes losing money because of the reference in any way, either by criticism or by selling them under your own brand. if you make a movie that people only want to see because of Mario or stop buying his games because of your movie, you gonna have a problem with Nintendo.
I know what you're thinking... Can I take advantage of this law and legally use this copyrighted material? Or will I be sued into oblivion by a cartoon mouse and a team of high priced lawyers? You've just got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?" Well, do ya, punk?
Yes, but the IBM one is almost entirely forgotten compared to the blackberry. The blackberry actually made some real cultural impact where the IBM one was kind of forgotten in the mainstream with time.
I thought you were just going to show off a puppet show of cardboard cut outs of the videos you were referencing but keep the original audio with synthetic layering cues.
Wait, we want MORE pop-culture references in movies? I think Blackberry is an exception that uses it effectively, but don't think other filmmakers aren't using "I Know What That Is!"/Memberberries as a way to dangle something shiny in front of an otherwise bored audience.
Hi Mr. Boucher, your about page said, "On a mission to watch every movie." I like your ambition and was wondering are you financially free and living on passive income to do this, perhaps have no kids, no obligation/responsibility, perhaps in a flexible relationship where you have time freedom to be able to do this? I ask because I too want to do this.
A problem with Fair Use is that it can only be determined in court. Even with a lawyer and even ticking all the boxes for Fair Use, you could end up in court and it won't be a sure thing that you will win. If you don't have the money to take it to court, it could be a big problem.
Only those with coin, connections, crews, clout, computer code, control, communities, and opportunities will prevail and succeed. Else... you ain't *nothin'*! 😂
That sounds unlikely. Fair use is a straightforward concept, and if the media is correctly applying it, it's doubtful a case would even go to court.
While it may seem straightforward, it isn’t as clear as it could be. The original commenter is correct in that fair use is actually determined in court. However, as you said, it is doubtful cases even get to court. Part of the reason why cases don’t go to court is because of precedent. If a company sues and argues against fair use of their IP and loses the case, then precedent is set in court and can be upheld in other cases. Most cases are not taken to court also because there are plenty of loopholes copyright owners can use to ensure that any money you make off of your fair use is diverted to them. With threats of legal action, taking some (if not all) of the money you make from your fair use work, as well as settling cases out of court, precedent is not set, thus preventing any future protections for those who employ fair use in their work.
@@Novastar.SaberCombatthat’s the bottom line for copyright law in general and the reason it should be abolished
@@Vanced-ii3bj Maybe so, but often the THREAT of court deters people from fair use. I know this through experience. I had a video on UA-cam taken down (wrongly) for copyright. I had to take it up with the lawyer who struck it and told them the video was cut-and-dried fair use and they threatened to take it to court. I told them that was fine and was prepared for that (I was bluffing) and my video got put back up.
We wouldn't have nearly so many problems with copyright and lawsuits if we went back to the original fourteen years, with fourteen more years if renewed, then everything goes to the public domain, like it should have always been.
Thank Disney for ruining that SMH
Exactly! Copyright was not originally intended to protect the profits of large corporations for centuries.
Tbh I see this as a double edged sword. It does protect the income of authors. If you've spent a significant time writing a book series, you might still believe when someone decides to write a sequel, or publish all your books and earn money off them without you getting a dime.
It would be great if it was possible for them to change the law to target media companies, with no one company able to hold copyright for more than a certain period of time.
@@abeedoit was good at about 25 or 50 years, since you'd either be dead or have moved on to newer projects by then. Life plus 75 years is overkill
@@Lucien_Mi totally agree.
Matt Johnson’s loophole-jumping skills led to one of my favorite jokes in Nirvanna The Band The Show. They started out wanting to cap off a big moment at the end of an episode with John Cena’s entrance music and worked back from there until their lawyer gave the thumbs-up that it was sufficiently integral to the plot, which is to say that Matt’s character reassured his friend “I’m gonna hit ‘em with the John Cena” before running into an active gunfight yelling “AND HIS NAME IS JOHN CENA”
But the theme didn't even play in that scene
Blackberry was fully independently made. The big studios won't risk being sued, they have deep pockets and a lot to lose.
Yeah. It seems like a gentleman’s agreement between the studios. No one wants they’re properties used without permission so they just don’t do it.
Maybe they also just don’t want to promote other studios stuff.
Do you think the amount of money the film makes and the amount of companies would also be a factor?
I'm a huge Matt Johnson fan. I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that using the fair use stuff really grounds the story. I've wondered why Nirvanna The Band The Show clicks with me so deeply, and I think that's absolutely a huge part of it. I'll bet Matt Johnson gets an Oscar nom within the next 5 years.
He's spot on with the "uncanny valley" feeling most movies and shows have from avoiding featuring IPs they don't own, like characters obviously talking around using common phrases like "my iphone" or "google it", websites or busy downtown streets having zero marketing material in sight or corny things like going to fictional burger places because they're too scared to put McDonalds in there or teenagers watching 90 year old movies (or Night Of The Living Dead half the time) because they're out of copyright and not just the latest thing on Netflix that kids actually watch.
@@CuteKiller313 Yeah, it makes dated movies/shows feel like the creator's best guess of what life was like then without having experienced it. It makes for a less immersive and authentic story.
The one that bugs me the most is when dudes are sitting on the couch playing a video game with controllers in hand but when you catch a glimpse of the tv screen it's some generic nonsense image cooked up just for the shot, not even a real game.
Matt Johnson is hilarious. The website that their original webshow Nirvana The Band The Show used to have SO MUCH copyrighted material on it just hidden in plain sight. Like you could click parts of the screen and it would just start playing some Hollywood action movie from the 80’s (in its entirety). I love that they found a way to enshrine his love of abusing copyrighted media.
No, THANK YOU so much for getting to the point without making the video last over 12mins❤
I would have watched a 30 min video about it though tbh 😅
@@purplevampireanime and i do too, very often, like listening to extensive videos about a single topic, but getting to the point in less time has way more value in my book
Especially as videos of 10 minutes or more automatically get a higher rate of ad revenue.
my laziness is your gain ❤️
NO SHIT. Yesterday I saw a video about a star emoji that lasted 30 minutes. Did not click.
The problem is people throw around the concept of “fair use” like it’s magic words, or an automatic get-out-of-jail free card. Obviously there are limits to how the principle can be used, and I’d like to hear more about that. Otherwise I think people can walk away with a distorted understanding of the concept, which isn’t the miracle solution it’s often presented as.
A good way to think of "fair use" is when you're using a short clip, quote from a book, or snippet of information to prove, verify, or comment on a POINT. 🙂 For example, if you're like: "Here in this clip of Jackie Chan's 'Supercop', he's doing X, Y, and Z. But in most Hollywon't films, we don't see these things. And why is that? Well, for one thing... ...", etc.
However, if you're using clips in order to *BE* your content, that's a really good way to (possibly) place yourself in the crosshairs of some litigiously active company.
What you yapping about yapper
Yeah .. I don't think this video did that . Carefully making sure to mention the lawyer more than once, to me dispels the fast cheap or easy miracle thinking.
But filmmakers are always finding a creative path .. I like that they just highlight this one tool in a positive way. It sounded more like with enough care you could walk on lava too.. lol
Hey JJ! Thanks for the informed response. Fun to run into you out in the wild
@@acksawblack you have lead poisoning and your brain has holes in it
The problem is, none of this guarantees the filmmakers stay out of court. Even if your fair use case is rock solid, any one of those IP holders can still decide to take you to court. And if their pockets are deeper than yours they could easily crush you financially while still losing the case.
Well yeah. Anybody can try to sue anyone for anything.
Nothing guarantees you stay out of court, basically.
I've seen plenty of to-the-point UA-cam channels, but no one covers topics like this in such a short way. Bravo.
the coca cola scene in the movie "the road" is a curious example. It looks like product placement, but it is actually fair use.
According to an article in SlashFilm, the filmmakers got permission from The Coca-Cola Company to use Coke in the movie.
Fantastic movie! Now I have to watch it again...
Thanks for making a short video essay. really refreshing
I'm not a lawyer, but I did study copyright law a bit for my masters in arts admin. I'm sorry to say, this does not match my understanding of fair use. You do not need a strong narrative reason for including copyright protected material. It just needs to be transformative.
The problem, as others have mentioned, is that our legal system is structured to benefit the giant multi-national corporations that have consolidated huge swaths of pop culture IP. Film makers don't avoid using copyright protected IP in their films because it's illegal. They avoid it because they could get sued by a giant IP troll and run out of money before they were able to prove what they did was legal.
It's never a question of what is legal. It's always a question of how much risk you are willing to take on.
Yeah, I'm no expert, but I did have to look carefully at the subject of fair use for my UA-cam channel and I was kind of baffled by this video because it did not fit my understanding of fair use at all. The fact that they used a lawyer made me think maybe I was wrong but your comment reassured me.
strong narrative reason=necessary for this new, different story=transformative. this matt johnson guy has talked about the same thing in interviews, they did this on nirvana: the band: the show also. the video probably doesnt explain it perfectly, but if you want to dig he has elaborated on it before.
You're completely wrong. Whether a work is transformative is only one factor of many used to evaluate fair use. Kindly delete or edit your comment. The world is filled with enough BS.
@@seigeengine You missed the bit where he said "but" after stating "I'm not a Lawyer". Obviously the "but" proves that he knows the actual facts.
It is the same way I got a job as a Surgeon, I said in the interview "I am not a Surgeon, but I did study butchery for a few years so I know a lot about anatomy."
If this loophole isn't effective how is a 30 year old movie still able to be using it right now then?
They didn’t “use Fair Use” to make this movie. They risk getting sued for copyright infringement and the Fair Use doctrine does not prevent anyone from launching a lawsuit. It is a defense, once in court, not permission.
So at the very MOST, the makers of this film are brave to hope that no property used in the film wastes their time and money with a lawsuit.
2:26 ..basically get a lawyer…gotcha
Great Video! I've heard Fair Use get thrown around ever since High School Media Arts class. Glad to finally see a connection to Narrative Filmmaking.
I'm using copyrighted music in the film I'm currently making. Since it's going on UA-cam only (and I wouldn't be making money on it anyway), I'm experimenting with the freedom to not worry about copyright at this stage in my filmmaking journey.
But! I love the idea of the Media being "integral to the story." Makes for a much more meaningful implementation of said Media. I will be thinking about that going forward for future films, and even as I am finishing this current project.
Thanks Alex!
Hey uh, i'm not an expert, but it's my understanding that getting demonetized is not the only thing you should worry about when using copyrighted material for a UA-cam video; whoever owns that material can also apply to take down the video entirely. Be careful out there! i wish you success.
For that matter, take down your entire channel.
Matt learned this making Nirvanna the Band the Show. The pop culture references in that show are insane
Nirvana the Band the show is so underrated. I’m so glad they were given a chance to make a movie like this.
1:07 not me recognizing that that prototype is made out of an original gameboy based off the screen and bottom shell piece…
Although to be fair I do repair them for a living so I think it’s a good thing I recognized the components instantly
I’m doing similar things with various works I’m in the middle of, and I hope it becomes more commonplace. Not because I want constant IP mashups, but because it’s authentic and honest to us as human beings.
I think something very important has been left out, which is why most movies don't take advantage of this: it's meant for educational works only. The "transformative" and "integral to the story" parts of the requirements are referring to works communicating a specific piece of information or history in which said copyrighted works absolutely have to be mentioned in order to explain said information or event. The movies mentioned in the video are documentaries or at least dramatization/fictionizations of real events. Any form of fiction that isn't based strictly around a real person/event is practically incapable of using fair use for the simple fact that how integral something is to the work is up to the author, and since it isn't real or based on anything real, the court, and whoever is the proper owner, can argue that it isn't integral and you can simply write it out. And as plenty of other comments have already stated, fair use isn't a guarantee, and depends on the court's interpretation.
Yeah its a long paragraph... I liked this video, it explained everything quite well (and in a short concise amount of time).But I think it failed to explain exactly why fair use isn't used more, which is something I think should have been brought up.
TL;DR: Most movies don't use fair use because fair use is meant primarily for a specific category of movie, and in many instances fair use isn't even guaranteed to work.
this comment is all just completely incorrect. parodies like the music of Weird Al and Scary Movie are able to use copyrighted work because of fair use, and they are in no way educational. fair use has four components, and one of those is the purpose for using copyrighted work. in many cases, a derivative work being educational is a use purpose that can be used to argue fair use, but there are plenty of reasons for using a copyrighted work that are acceptable for totally different reasons.
@@avrilsegoli Thanks for bringing up those examples, I completely forgot about parodies. They're able to fall under fair use not because of being informative, but by being an example of using free-speech (conveying its creator's thoughts and opinions on a specific subject). I'm not sure whether it comes across this way or not, but I don't believe education is the one and only way to use fair use, but I believe it is the primary type of work (along with parody) that can actually justify its need in the court of law.
I would like to ask (and I'm not asking to debate or anything): What other reasons, besides education and parody, have people managed to use copyrighted material and have it fall under fair use? It genuinely intrigues me. Thus far, the two already mentioned above were the only ones I ever came across.
To be clear, while using other's copyrighted material for educational purposes does tilt the table, it is not a guarantee something is fair use, nor is it required for fair use.
3:22 Felt this way about the "support group" scene in Wreck-It Ralph that was used for the film's teaser. Played off the idea that games might be referenced in the film, however it was pretty much just that scene (and a few non-arcade cameos outside of the scene that didn't make sense in the world they built).
if only fair use was applicable to music
instead we got these broken copyright laws in place because of big greedy major labels
Just remember that major platforms like youtube have shown consistently that they do not care about fair use at all, and will side with literally anyone who copyright claims your video.
Also, some companies will engage in "lawfare" which means they will still file a lawsuit against you, even if they know they will not ultimately win. The goal is to wear you down using the time, and primarily, the COST of defending yourself in court. They don't win LEGALLY, they win DE FACTO because they have more money and can just keep taking you to court. They are a big company, you are just a guy. You run out of money, they don't.
To be clear, companies like YT really don't have a choice in the matter. If they don't comply they become legally at risk themselves.
0:19 That is not Virtua Fighter LOL. That's a game called Martial Masters, released by IGS in 1999. It's pretty obscure though, so I won't blame you for not getting the ID.
gaaah, my bad. Thanks for letting me know! Odd how Martial Masters wasn't listed in the end credits, Virtua Fighters was the only fighting game there so I made the assumption :/
Wrong again, his name is actually Slim Shady
@@awesomedude-qy1zolow key hilarious
I blame Disney for condoning the stripping away of our rights.
How does this video only have 2k views! Here before your channel blows up
Because it is one day old. At least at the time of writing this.
Dude you're videos are really well edited and well scripted with the editing , awsome 👍
I absolutely love how far this channel has come since I started watching the Arnold video back in the day. You kill it on every single video man!!!
I eagerly await the Every Jackie Chan film review (Watch the original cut of Police Story 2 plz and ty it's way less boring AND has better music)
that's wild. When at film school, they instilled a fear of copywrite in us lol
Moral of the story: fuck copyright.
I LOVE Matt Johnson, he’s actually a genius.
Isn't the first smartphone IBM Simon (1994)? And there were things like Nokia 9000 Communicator (1996), HP OmniGo 700LX (1996) etc.
That explains the movie credits mash-up at the end of The Dirties - love that movie.
I always though that the only way to force companies to accept fair use is by doing corporeal punishment to copyright enforcers, but apparently you can lawyer your way out... I still think they should be scared of false copyright strikes leading to public humiliation and pain so they wont abuse it.
As opposed to incorporeal punishment?
GHOST JUSTICE!
The moment a lawyer is needed as an extra consultant the costs go up fast. People use non brands for cost effective reasons the vast majority of the time. But I agree ... It's a tool that is there, it should be utilized more :)
Staying alive was completely narratively integrated in The Office, but at the end of the day The Office legal team just made a deal to avoid court hearings. So it's hard to believe that practice would be common.
Great video! Been thinking of using this for one of my films! Was always worried about Copyright 😂
THIS is how you gain a new subscriber very fast. Great video!
I thought the video was just starting! 😅 this is an amazing video
Like the meme says “it’s free real estate”
Leaving a video to boost the video a bit, i finally watched the film, easily one of my favorites of 2023
Amazing, amazing video. Thank you for this. But whoa whoa whoa, let's pump the brakes on harsh Ready Player One critiques as that movie is lowkey about Spielberg coming to grips with his immeasurable impact on pop culture using IPs he was around for the creation of. Sort of like a S-tier studio-backed fair use movie
That thumbnail is all over the place. Had to check out the vid! 😂
If only fair use was was as strong as youtubers thought it was
Wicked editing man!
Companys can still sue you though, or threaten to do so, and you will never have enough money to argue that what you did is fair use. It's completely useless.
The argument at the end makes no sense. Fair use doesn't force filmmakers to make interesting art, the threat of violence copyright law poses didn't make the movie good, the commentary on culture and authentic depiction of it did.
We would have more of these stories if you didn't have to write them with a lawyer or fear being sued for millions and having your life ruined.
Copyright is the enemy of art and must go, culture belongs to all of us, not a few billionaires.
What if, in order to explain someone else's copyrighted work from end to end, you have to reproduce it from end to end, with additional material intercut, superimposed, voiced over, or side by side? Like a DVD commentary reel of someone else's DVD? It seems amazing that you could use the whole thing in a way that viewers who were interested in only the original could view that way with minimal distraction, yet it seems impossible to adequately explain without doing so, or alternatively providing sync signals for the viewer to have another player going in parallel.
Chris Huth has recently been hosting discussion panels for _Lost_ on his UA-cam channel (The Huth Truth) in which he has some entries consisting of after-viewing panel discussions, and others with his commentary synchronized to an instruction to a viewer to start playing a _Lost_ installment. It'd be so much more convenient for him to be able to just add commentary on top of the original on UA-cam. We understand that UA-cam has its own rules on content usage that are stricter than the law allows in the USA and probably other countries, and that they'd like to maintain good relationships with both the big and few, and small and many, content providers, and that the compromise isn't easy.
Friends have suggested I provide my own video explanations of _Lost_ -- as a friend of the show runner since he was a teenager, I have a special perspective -- but it really would require not only the use ot practically the whole of the serial, but of other copyrighted unacknowledged (but implicit) source material such as the British detective series _Department S_ as well as much public domain matter. For instance, how could the audience "get" the resemblance of the music and graphics of _Lost_ to that of _Department S_ unless side by side?
I remember wanting to watch blackberry but i needed to wait a few months till i was 15 so i could loan it from my library but then i forgot
I think a more accurate thing to say is that “they have not been sued because of fair use… not yet anyway.” It really is up to the court of law whether they broke the law or not, and it’s honestly quite subjective to know if what you did qualifies as under fair use or not. They’re on thin ice if for some reason the big wig companies want to go after “the little guy” to prove a point.
I think the quality and message of the film is also a big factor in companies deciding whether or not to sue.
If this was Human Centipede? I think companies might have a longer look.
With BlackBerry its just a great commercial for the things you used to love.
I know it might not be a "fair use" example but I love how show Sugar uses old movies as a view into how main character perceives himself through the lens of his passion for movies. It would be worse show without it.
Excellent video. Love Matt Johnson and his use of Fair Use in his projects.
great choices for talking about video essayists honestly
Matt Johnson is a genius
Ahhhhhhhh. I knew i recognized that guy!
ITS THE WII SHOP WEDNESDAY DUDE!
Well, this is simply excellent. Thank you.
How does this apply to unauthorized biographies.
If I wanted to make a docu-drama about Captain Kangaroo… what can I get away with using?
People publish unauthorized biographies all the time. I just don’t know the limits.
And you have a Nirvanna The Band The Show Video... my god you're my UA-cam soulmate
Such a well known topic covered in such an interesting way. Reaallyyy good video!
But is it based on the copyright laws that the media originated in (ie is copyrighted in) or those of the country where the new (transformative) media is created? I understand Canada doesn’t even have a fair use law, although it does have ‘fair dealings’ which is similar.
1 ok now i need to watch this movie and 2 I never thought of movies using fair use. I've seen tv use this in the form of references, sometimes they show a clip of a movie in a show, or have the audio playing in the background or something. But this is a whole different story!
The guy from Nirvanna the show the band made a movie?
Thanks for making this video. Great stuff, keep it up!
Great video! Fair Use is why Weird Al Yankovic has outlasted so many of the music acts he's parodied over the decades. Haven't seen Blackberry yet but excited to watch it now
Weird Al pays for the rights of the original songs, even though he’s parodying them. He doesn’t rely on fair use.
Short, sweet and to the point, excellent video!
holy moly, straight to the point wth xD good video!!!
Matt's been "stealing" since day the webshow days
Having lots of different IPs isn't faceless garbage. It makes the movie fun because you get to try to spot all the different references
Surprised we aren't discussing Ready Player One, a movie full of references.
Excellent video, and as others have said, thanks for getting to the point
you ever watch Matt Johnson’s Nirvana The Band The show? he’s brilliant
How does the fair use apply with things like Pepsi bottles on tables etc. That's the common issue I see is daily beverages and items we use.
whats the name of the song that leads into the end of the video?
I may be wrong(not a lawyer myself) but what I have always heard is that you can basically use any product, clip etc as long as you are not directly making money from it. If your whole story is Mickey Mouse teaming up with someone, that's no longer free use because you are specifically using their IP to make money. And it can't be claimed that it is essential to the story because clearly that is a choice that you made and could change - a movie like this is basically using it as set dressing so you can't sub something else for it as it wouldn't make sense. So ultimately any movie could have their character drinking Coke and eating McDonald's but most don't because why are you going to give them free advertising? That's why most want product placement and licensing deals, makes them money.
johnson nation rise
You don't really go into details of how one would use that legally. I mean they could still take you to court even if you dot your i's and cross your t's. They can also be as broad or as narrow as they need to effectively sue your pants off.
I’m reporting g this video for breaking copyright laws! /s seriously I hate how the DCMA takedown requests are too easy on UA-cam, but actually harder to go after films for unlawful use of copyright
It was a TV show, but anyway really good video
EDIT: just found out it was both?? Interesting. They aired it in episodes on CBC.
I think this can also apply to stuff like educational purpose and UA-cam videos
Great video, subbed :)
0:20 that is not virtua fighter how could you even think thats virtua fighter
Matt prolly also needed a lawyer to make sure that the real people depicted in the Blackberry movie won't sue him for making a almost completely fictional movie just with real people's names😂😂
neutral or positive references under a certain length like these are almost always undisputed. why would companies not want free marketing?
problems start when the owner of an IP feels like hes losing money because of the reference in any way, either by criticism or by selling them under your own brand. if you make a movie that people only want to see because of Mario or stop buying his games because of your movie, you gonna have a problem with Nintendo.
What is it with these documentary videos.. that this 4 minute video feels like 20 minutes or so..😅
I know what you're thinking...
Can I take advantage of this law and legally use this copyrighted material?
Or will I be sued into oblivion by a cartoon mouse and a team of high priced lawyers?
You've just got to ask yourself one question: "Do I feel lucky?"
Well, do ya, punk?
I JUST REALIZED THAT THE REASON READY PLAYER ONE HAS A MINECRAFT SECTION IS BECAUSE WB WAS ALREADY MAKING THE MINECRAFT MOVIE
i missed this length of video
Hollywood joined the discussion. Bad news!
About 80% of the movie A Glitch in The Matrix was Fair Use.
Source - I did the clearances 😉
The blackberry wasn’t the first smartphone was made by ibm not blackberry
Yes, but the IBM one is almost entirely forgotten compared to the blackberry. The blackberry actually made some real cultural impact where the IBM one was kind of forgotten in the mainstream with time.
I enjoyed the Blackberry movie, but it would have been even more 90's if they had to go with Doom clones
I thought you were just going to show off a puppet show of cardboard cut outs of the videos you were referencing but keep the original audio with synthetic layering cues.
matt johnson is the director too??
Wait, we want MORE pop-culture references in movies? I think Blackberry is an exception that uses it effectively, but don't think other filmmakers aren't using "I Know What That Is!"/Memberberries as a way to dangle something shiny in front of an otherwise bored audience.
But if you use more than 3 seconds of a song clip your upload gets deleted.
Do we really? Do we really need to ask why?
This video kicks so much ass
Hi Mr. Boucher, your about page said, "On a mission to watch every movie." I like your ambition and was wondering are you financially free and living on passive income to do this, perhaps have no kids, no obligation/responsibility, perhaps in a flexible relationship where you have time freedom to be able to do this? I ask because I too want to do this.
BAD. DATES.