How is honest trailers not getting copyright strikes?

[KGATV]

Just a side note-parody is covered under Fair Use. Satire is not.

I thought they were the same thing lol. Whoops.

 

[TigerXtrm]

I'd like to know the same thing, I've heard from my brother (huge PewDiePie fan) that PewDiePie even uses music in his videos...

I'm guessing that PewDiePie has the common sense to buy music rights to whatever commercial music he uses in his videos. Not all music requires that though, so maybe he just picks his music very carefully.[DOUBLEPOST=1397924746,1397924715][/DOUBLEPOST]

Just a side note-parody is covered under Fair Use. Satire is not.

Interesting, mind explaining the difference between the two?

 

[Tarmack]

I'm guessing that PewDiePie has the common sense to buy music rights to whatever commercial music he uses in his videos. Not all music requires that though, so maybe he just picks his music very carefully.[DOUBLEPOST=1397924746,1397924715][/DOUBLEPOST]
Interesting, mind explaining the difference between the two?

Parody - Using a copyrighted work to poke fun at the copyrighted work
Satire (for the purposes of a fair use determination) - Using a copyrighted work to poke fun at something unrelated to the copyrighted work.

 

[Eggs]

Parody - Using a copyrighted work to poke fun at the copyrighted work
Satire (for the purposes of a fair use determination) - Using a copyrighted work to poke fun at something unrelated to the copyrighted work.

According to

Wikipedia is not a good source... Here's something directly about this from my business law book:

"Copyright infringement occurs when a party copies a substantial and material part of the plaintiff’s copyrighted work without permission. The copying does not have to be either word for word or the entire work. A plaintiff can bring a civil action against the alleged infringer and, if successful, recover ( 1) the profit made by the defendant from the copyright infringement, ( 2) damages suffered by the plaintiff, ( 3) an order requiring the impoundment and destruction of the infringing works, and ( 4) an injunction preventing the defendant from infringing in the future. The court, in its discretion, can award statutory damages for willful infringement in lieu of actual damages. The federal government can bring criminal charges against a person who commits copyright infringement. Criminal copyright infringement, including infringement committed without monetary gain, is punishable by up to five years in federal prison." (Cheeseman, 2013)

"A copyright holder’s right in a work is not absolute. The law permits certain limited unauthorized use of copyrighted materials under the fair use doctrine. The following uses are protected under this doctrine: ( 1) quotation of the copy-righted work for review or criticism or in a scholarly or technical work, ( 2) use in a parody or satire, ( 3) brief quotation in a news report, ( 4) reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of the work to illustrate a lesson, ( 5) incidental reproduction of a work in a newsreel or broadcast of an event being reported, and ( 6) reproduction of a work in a legislative or judicial proceeding. The copyright holder cannot recover for copyright infringement where fair use is found." (Cheeseman, 2013)

Reference
Cheeseman, H. F. (2013). Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

both parody and satire are protected under fair use. But all in all, it comes down to the copyright holder and how strict they are. Some just don't care at all, and some will just not let go of claims, no matter how legitimate disputes are.

 

[Tarmack]

both parody and satire are protected under fair use. But all in all, it comes down to the copyright holder and how strict they are. Some just don't care at all, and some will just not let go of claims, no matter how legitimate disputes are.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/Seuss.html

For the TL;DR version, this case is surrounding a group who used the Dr. Seuss style in order to retell the events of the OJ Simpson trial. It was called "The Cat Not in the Hat, by Dr. Juice". The court found that the work was that of satire, not parody due to the ridiculing of OJ Simpson and not Dr. Seuss.

"Parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim's (or collective victims) imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing."

Other factors were of course considered however they found in favor of Dr. Seuss and the fair use defense failed. The basic premise of why parody works and satire doesn't is because you MUST use some elements of the original in order to do a parody of it. It is the necessity of this connection that is the basis for the fair use parody defense. For Satire on the other hand, there is no rigid requirement for the use of any particular copyrighted work in most cases and as a result the obvious response from the copyright holder is "Why did you NEED to pick our content and not someone elses?". This is why Satire tends to fail.

 

[MarkRodriguez2012]

I always figured parody was trying to imitate something already existing... like if I gathered my pals to make a short Dark Knight parody thing with costumes and stuff. So in a way it's new because it's not the actual movie, it's me in a Batman costume imitating Bale's Batman, but it's still considered parody because I'm not the creator of Batman nor the Dark Knight movies. I thought that's what parody meant.

 

[Tarmack]

I always figured parody was trying to imitate something already existing... like if I gathered my pals to make a short Dark Knight parody thing with costumes and stuff. So in a way it's new because it's not the actual movie, it's me in a Batman costume imitating Bale's Batman, but it's still considered parody because I'm not the creator of Batman nor the Dark Knight movies. I thought that's what parody meant.

Essentially you're correct. Now, if you were in Batman costumes and were making fun of a Geico commercial, that would be satire. And DC would be well within their rights to come after you.

 

[louislolo]

Parody are considered as copyright content. Check out a video about copyright made by Youtube. (It's a Happy Tree Friends cartoon)

 

[Sebas]

Parody are considered as copyright content. Check out a video about copyright made by Youtube. (It's a Happy Tree Friends cartoon)

Not sure what you mean by that? Parody is considered fair use, but must be decided in court, so until an agreement is found, a part of the video contains content copyrighted by the original rights holder.