Is the Hillary 1984 ad a violation of copyright?

[quinnox]

I heard it was originally an ad created by Apple and it is modified to put Hillary in.

[eShirl]

1. one could argue it falls under "fair use"

[quinnox]

4. So then it could be put on the commercial channels?

I am wondering how far they are going to take this ad.

[John Q. Citizen]

13. It has over a million hits. And that's by people paying attention. I'm sure it

doesn't need to go anywhere. It's doing fine right where it's at.

[Arugula Latte]

23. Awww -- Just had to comment on your beautiful kitty.

:loveya:

[Donnachaidh]

2. it's not modified enough to keep it from a court date

Bet that's why the *creator* is hiding out.

[Ignacio Upton]

8. I'm surprised that YouTube USERS aren't being sued a la the RIAA

Then again, I don't think that many of the people who post those clips of Colbert know that they could get sued.

[Donnachaidh]

12. don't think the RIAA isn't working on it

They just haven't figured out a slam dunk prosecution yet.

[Ignacio Upton]

15. You could easily hide your IP address on message boards

Or you could just log into your YouTube account on another computer. I would think that it's easier for the RIAA et al. to catch you on p2p networks because your address is out in the open, and in real time. With YouTube, the copyright holder not only has to go through the ISP, but also the website that logged that IP address (although...I'm not sure if the DMCA forces message board-type sites to turn over IP addresses of their members.)

[northzax]

18. DMCA

it is the responsibility of the website, not the user.

[Ignacio Upton]

21. Then why is the RIAA suing users of file sharing networks?

n/t.

[northzax]

22. difference between a hosted site (like youTube)

and a p2p is that the content is never hosted on the p2p, it comes from one computer to another. Napster's problem is that it delivered the copywrited information across it's territory, so to speak.

YouTube is, for instance, being sued by Viacom for copyright infringement because they are disseminating the stuff.

take, as an example, freeperville. they were sued for violating copyright by several large newspapers (the reason you can't post full articles here) it is the responsibility of the owner of that sito to ensure that there are no violations, the site is liable, not the user/poster.

[thereismore]

3. doesn't matter nt

[MrModerate]

5. Seems derivative to me . . . even a parody . . .

Which is protected.

Not to mention that the producer probably doesn't have two cents to rub together and Apple/Chiatt-Day wouldn't yield much even if they won an infringement suit.

Is Chiatt-Day even still in business?

[melm00se]

14. I was going to say the same thing...

as parody/satire it would be within statute for purposes of copyright

[Ignacio Upton]

6. It's parody

The ad is being used for commentary, so you could argue fair use. It ultimately comes down to whether or not Apple doesn't want the ad up. Copyright law may say one thing, but it doesn't necessarily mean that it's enforceable, especially on smaller message boards (for example, NYT Times Select pieces are still posted in their entirety on several smaller blogs, but since their traffic isn't astronomical, there is less of a chance that the folks at the NYT care.) Because DU is a larger site (and thus makes more ad revenue), the admins have to be more careful about that.

So far Apple is keeping its mouth shut about this:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/03/20/1984/index.php

[C_U_L8R]

9. Is it truly commentary?

Isn't it more like Coke ripping a Volkswagen ad
and changing the voiceover to say Pepsi sucks??

That's certainly not legal.

[Ignacio Upton]

11. Well, it's commentary on the general theme

But I agree that this ad falls under a gray area. It all depends on whether or not Apple decides to even sue. While they COULD, I don't think they SHOULD. That ad was only intended to run once publicly, and for a product that Apple no longer sells (the original Macintosh.) They're no longer trying to make money off of that ad.

[C_U_L8R]

25. Certainly the actors aren't being paid

someone owes them residuals for using their performances.

And it doesn't matter whether Apple ever intends to use the ad again...
it is their property. It's not a spoof of their ad.. it IS their ad with a one big change.

[quinnox]

7. So my next question is could they run this ad on the cable stations?

I am wondering how far they are going to take this ad. I think it is repub group.

[Ignacio Upton]

10. If they run it on tv, "they" may be more likely to get sued

Since under tv ads, there is a direct payment to get the money on the air, whereas if you upload an ad on YouTube, it's not done with publicity, and you don't make any direct financial transaction for it.

[champt10]

16. Where's Apple

I havent heard them complain yet.

[Ignacio Upton]

17. So far, their position is "no comment"

http://www.macworld.com/news/2007/03/20/1984/index.php

[wuushew]

19. Only if you believe one can own the intangible

no such such thing as intellectual property.

[TheWraith]

20. As long as it's done for parody and no profit, it's safe.

Even profitable parodies generally fall under the Fair Use exemptions to copyright law (no matter how hard the media industry has tried to stamp them out).

[WinkyDink]

24. It's not an "ad" if it's just something on youtube, along with a million other vids.

And the media shouldn't even be paying attention to it.

[dysfunctional press]

26. that's like people thinking that the stuff they post to message boards is "copyright" material.

it isn't.

people really need to understand what constitutes "copyright" "fair usage" "parody" and the like.
does the educational system in this country suck, or what(or is that another thread?)

i think that fred schneider said it best: "...before i talk, i should read a book."

[gatorboy]

27. How is the Apple commercial not copyrighted material?

If I slap Bush's image onto a McDonald's commercial, sure it's a parody of Bush, but Micky D's still has the right to shut me down considering I used their ad without permission.