# Senate hearing on IP and fair use (w Rick Beato)



## Rasoul Morteza (Jul 28, 2020)

You can access the full video here: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/me...late-limitations-and-exceptions-like-fair-use

Cheers


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Jul 28, 2020)

Nothing showing - are they on a break?


----------



## Rasoul Morteza (Jul 28, 2020)

EpicEsquire said:


> Nothing showing - are they on a break?


The video starts a lot later, you have to skip.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Jul 28, 2020)

Rasoul Morteza said:


> The video starts a lot later, you have to skip.




Been trying - skipping does nothing - just keeps the same title screen - oh well

Switched to Firefox instead of Safari and it worked


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 28, 2020)

I personaly agree whith what Rick is trying to say. He doesn't do What Makes This Song Great to make money from it. He is just breaking down the composition to work out why that particular song did well in the charts or industry.
If he does one on say Hendrix, a song that was released forty odd years ago, there is a very big possibility that youngster hearing it now might really like it and go out and buy it and the sales of that song could suddenly rise again after forty years. So when they 'block' Ricks video (even though he is not actually gaining anything himself) they are potentially damages sales of their own property lol.
I mean how stupid is that lol.
I did a cover of Led Zeps 'The Ocean'. I wasn't earning money from it, i did it cos i liked playing the guitar part to it.

I got the backing track from a Kareoke site, it had the drums, bass and vocals only.

When i put it up, Zepplins publishers had YouTube block the audio but left the video up. What's the point of that lol.

I could understand if i was making money from it but i wasn't.

Then, you look on YouTube and there are loads of Led Zep covers that have been up for years.

It don't make sense half the time.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Jul 28, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> I personaly agree whith what Rick is trying to say. He doesn't do What Makes This Song Great to make money from it. He is just breaking down the composition to work out why that particular song did well in the charts or industry.
> If he does one on say Hendrix, a song that was released forty odd years ago, there is a very big possibility that youngster hearing it now might really like it and go out and buy it and the sales of that song could suddenly rise again after forty years. So when they 'block' Ricks video (even though he is not actually gaining anything himself) they are potentially damages sales of their own property lol.
> I mean how stupid is that lol.
> I did a cover of Led Zeps 'The Ocean'. I wasn't earning money from it, i did it cos i liked playing the guitar part to it.
> ...



Just to play devil's advocate (since this is the Interwebz)...any video that Mr. Beato puts up, especially his most popular series "What Makes This Song Great", drives traffic to his site - some of those that view those videos become subscribers and watch other videos of his, which are monetized...additionally, some viewers might buy join his "Club" or purchase his books/merchandise, which directly inures to his financial benefit

While it can be argued that Mr. Beato's channel might have become equally popular without his "WMTSG" series, that is not what happened and we will never know

I support anyone who puts out educational videos on YouTube...however, until a Court states otherwise, artists who created intellectual property most certainly have the rights to determine how that intellectual property is being used and for what purposes


----------



## Rasoul Morteza (Jul 28, 2020)

EpicEsquire said:


> I support anyone who puts out educational videos on YouTube...however, until a Court states otherwise, artists who created intellectual property most certainly have the rights to determine how that intellectual property is being used and for what purposes


This is not about artists' control over their IP, but corporate nonsensical practices from which artists generally do not gain anything at all. Otherwise no sane person would argue against your point.

Cheers


----------



## proxima (Jul 28, 2020)

Rick Beato makes a clear case for fair use, one with which I wholeheartedly agree. I'm not as big of a fan of his "fair user registry", though I suppose it would be an improvement over the status quo.

The singer who testified after Rick believes, as many people do, that US IP law should grant them the ability to control all aspects of their work, but I disagree for one simple reason: parody. Parody is the very type of speech that many IP holders may reject, but allowing it is a fundamental part of free speech. In fact, the person who testified after the singer makes this case well.

Thanks to the OP for posting - remarkably interesting for congressional testimony.


----------



## pinki (Jul 28, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> I personaly agree whith what Rick is trying to say. He doesn't do What Makes This Song Great to make money from it. He is just breaking down the composition to work out why that particular song did well in the charts or industry.
> If he does one on say Hendrix, a song that was released forty odd years ago, there is a very big possibility that youngster hearing it now might really like it and go out and buy it and the sales of that song could suddenly rise again after forty years. So when they 'block' Ricks video (even though he is not actually gaining anything himself) they are potentially damages sales of their own property lol.
> I mean how stupid is that lol.
> I did a cover of Led Zeps 'The Ocean'. I wasn't earning money from it, i did it cos i liked playing the guitar part to it.
> ...



Of course he makes money out of it! His full time job is his Youtube channel. He has millions of hits which makes his income. That is why it is problematic. If it was just a promotional use for the artist then there would be no issue. (In my music contracts there is often a clause allowing use of my music for promotional purposes with no renumeration). But Rick is making money at the same time....which is problematic.


----------



## Symfoniq (Jul 28, 2020)

pinki said:


> Of course he makes money out of it! His full time job is his Youtube channel. He has millions of hits which makes his income. That is why it is problematic. If it was just a promotional use for the artist then there would be no issue. (In my music contracts there is often a clause allowing use of my music for promotional purposes with no renumeration). But Rick is making money at the same time....which is problematic.



IIRC, many of Rick's videos are demonetized.


----------



## proxima (Jul 28, 2020)

Symfoniq said:


> IIRC, many of Rick's videos are demonetized.


Exactly. And rather than split the money with the record label, acknowledging that both he and the music are adding value, all of the money goes to the record label.

Beato's videos overwhelmingly satisfy two of the factors for fair use in the U.S.: his clips are short, and if anything, they improve the market value for the actual songs themselves. On the traditional "educational" use factor, his is commercial educational as opposed to noncommercial educational. 

And yet, his videos (at least the "what makes this song great" series) are treated similarly to one which simply posts the entire song with no value added. And artists who insist on takedowns can't have any videos made about them. Shouldn't we be able to analyze works by these artists?


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Jul 28, 2020)

proxima said:


> Rick Beato makes a clear case for fair use, one with which I wholeheartedly agree. I'm not as big of a fan of his "fair user registry", though I suppose it would be an improvement over the status quo.
> 
> The singer who testified after Rick believes, as many people do, that US IP law should grant them the ability to control all aspects of their work, but I disagree for one simple reason: parody. Parody is the very type of speech that many IP holders may reject, but allowing it is a fundamental part of free speech. In fact, the person who testified after the singer makes this case well.
> 
> Thanks to the OP for posting - remarkably interesting for congressional testimony.




Coolio would like a word with you


----------



## proxima (Jul 28, 2020)

EpicEsquire said:


> Coolio would like a word with you


Spoofing a song to make fun of something unrelated (Weird Al's MO) isn't the clearest cut parody. I'm talking about making fun of a song directly: something like the series of literal music videos on Youtube.


----------



## RonOrchComp (Jul 28, 2020)

Symfoniq said:


> IIRC, many of Rick's videos are demonetized.



Well, this is monetized:



So is this:



and on and on.

It's fair use if you don't make a profit. If you do make a profit, then it most likely is not fair use.

Form an article:


_There are several factors that a court will consider when determining whether an instance of infringement qualifies as fair use. Non-commercial use weighs heavily in favor of finding that the infringement is fair use. Violations often occur when the use is motivated primarily by a desire for commercial gain. The fact that a work is published primarily for private commercial gain weighs against a finding of fair use._


----------



## proxima (Jul 28, 2020)

RonOrchComp said:


> It's fair use if you don't make a profit. If you do make a profit, then it most likely is not fair use.


No, because by that logic Napster and bittorrents would be legal - the people uploading the music weren't making a profit. Profit is neither necessary nor sufficient for it to be not fair use. Torrents violate the other factors of fair use completely.

A documentary using CNN footage from the Iraq War? Almost surely fair use. The nature of the work is non-fiction, it uses a short clip, it isn't taking away the market for CNN, and it's educational (albeit commercial educational).

Fair use is a fuzzy combination of the factors, and it can only really be determined in court for sure. It'd be nice to have some greater guidance from the US Copyright office, and certainly explicitly licensing content is the safest way to go, but it shouldn't be necessary in some of these cases.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer either, so take this all with a grain (or block) of salt.


----------



## rhizomusicosmos (Jul 28, 2020)

I wonder if Rick's use of these songs would be considered "transformative":








What Is Fair Use?


In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. ...




fairuse.stanford.edu





Is it critical commentary? Does the public reap benefits from his WMTSG? I would say yes.


----------



## RonOrchComp (Jul 28, 2020)

proxima said:


> No, because by that logic Napster and bittorrents would be legal - the people uploading the music weren't making a profit.



No - there are other criteria that has to be met; it's not ALL about whether or not profit is made. So, not making a profit doesn't automatically make it fair use. You can not be making a profit, and still have it not be fair use.



proxima said:


> A documentary using CNN footage from the Iraq War? Almost surely fair use.



No. There are some exceptions, for ex if CNN broadcast NASA footage; that footage is already in the public domain. But if CNN filmed the content, they own that footage, and that footage needs to be licensed.









How to license TV news footage for a documentary: How much does TV news footage cost to license? - Documentary Film Cameras


Learn all the steps & costs of how to license TV news footage for documentary film & television. Great introduction to incorporating archival news footage in your movie.




documentarycameras.com


----------



## RonOrchComp (Jul 28, 2020)

rhizomusicosmos said:


> Is it critical commentary? Does the public reap benefits from his WMTSG? I would say yes.



See, that is in fact criteria for fair use. But, there is another question.

Is Rick making a profit? No? Then it is fair use for the reasons you pointed out. Yes? Then that is no longer fair use.


----------



## MusiquedeReve (Jul 28, 2020)

Before uploading videos, Mr. Beato can file in the Federal District Court for a declaratory judgment that the video he is going to post falls under Fair Use. Of course, he would then have to do so for each and every song in each in every video


----------



## rhizomusicosmos (Jul 28, 2020)

RonOrchComp said:


> See, that is in fact criteria for fair use. But, there is another question.
> 
> Is Rick making a profit? No? Then it is fair use for the reasons you pointed out. Yes? Then that is no longer fair use.



But isn't it the case that the profit issue is somewhat greyer in practice? If you are an academic and your source of income involves publishing critical commentary on texts or other media that is under copyright, does that not come under fair use?


----------



## proxima (Jul 28, 2020)

RonOrchComp said:


> No. There are some exceptions, for ex if CNN broadcast NASA footage; that footage is already in the public domain. But if CNN filmed the content, they own that footage, and that footage needs to be licensed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your own link describes how some documentaries don't license the content and rely on fair use. Risky, because they could be taken to court and have to defend themselves under the doctrine, but they do it. Again, that's the fundamental issue with using fair use - it's a defense after you get sued, and costly to defend yourself with. So the safer way out is to license, but that doesn't mean it was legally required.


----------



## WhiteNoiz (Jul 28, 2020)

RonOrchComp said:


> ll, this is monetized:



I'm pretty sure that if something gets identified the copyright holder (or supposed holder) can choose to monetize the video, no matter what the uploader chose to do at the time of the upload. 

I'm saying "supposed" because if can get identified wrong. It's happened to me. One example: I'd made an instrumental cover of one song from a game OST. I never monetized it (actually, nothing is monetized on that channel, as it's a for fun side endeavor). But, at some point it got identified as a cover that an artist had made, while obviously having no similarities, except the title. So, now that video is monetized; and it's out of my control (other than outright deleting it). Well, at least the monetization part. 


I did nothing about it, as it has few views and I didn't plan on monetizing it anyway. There are others where it identifies the composition and monetizes it (or the holder does). It can get stuff wrong. Even with those, I'm pretty sure some are claimed by unrelated entities to the actual publisher or composer. They could be running it through some third party company for all I know, but I can't be bothered to look them up. It is quite annoying (also having the potential earnings being funnelled to some unrelated entity in some cases).

You can counter claim, but it's pretty much free real estate for the entity or person making the claim, as they can simply reject your claim with no proof or oversight. Then, if you want to claim again you have to dox yourself to the other end, as it's just assumed there will be legal proceedings after some point. It's very one sided.

Google/YT uses a scorched earth approach just to be safe. It usually works, as it blocks the actual works, but there are cases like those above. There are numerous videos explaining this on the platform. But, of course, you need to be operating a channel to really experience this and be familiar with it and the workings. 

Anyway, just an FYI...


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jul 28, 2020)

The idea that profit has anything to do with fair use is kind of silly.

Also, there seems to be some issue with people making money in general. It's work, and it's entertainment. Are you mad that they can make money off showing a few 10 second clips of someone else's song? Well what do you think is in the entire rest of the video that makes it just as interesting as the small fraction of the song clip?

I think covers/parodies should be treated monetarily different, but fair use itself should not at all be impacted based on the financial gain of the content creator.

If you feel that way about Beato showing a few clips, how do you feel about ... well tons of the entertainment industry? If I wreck my car into a church tomorrow - the local news anchors would surely get viewers/ad money from my story of driving into a church... is that unethical? Anthony Fantano just reviewed Oliver Tree's newest album... should he be allowed to monetize him talking about someone else's IP?

Does the line cross if he played 10 seconds of Oliver's album??? Why??? Do you think I'm going to replay an 8:11 video for 10 seconds of it on repeat - and as a result, not use avenues that directly finance Oliver and those who own the rights to his work??

Some real mental gymnastics to support that position, which I'm convinced requires you resent people for making money in general. I dont make money from any of those things, so I have no skin in the game - but as a viewer of many discussions involving other artists, it's essential for learning. 

I'm imagining text books if mozart copystriked every exerpt from them, and it's abysmal.


----------



## GtrString (Jul 29, 2020)

Im not a fan. I find it hard to see why mr Beato‘s pledge for fair use on youtube should have any merit, the most copyright infringing platform on planet earth. We have had decades with copyright infringements, so much that whole generations of musicians have lost jobs and interest in music. He sounds like a Napster employee to me.

I think mr Beato takes this way too far, with no consideration of historical context. The ”free” paradigm has to stop, not be allowed to continue. I think mr Beato exploits his channel and his followers to political agitation against the common interests of working musicians. That he loses a couple days work on his popular personal channel is beside the point. There should be no free ride to mr Beato or nobody else, Im sorry.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jul 29, 2020)

GtrString said:


> Im not a fan. I find it hard to see why mr Beato‘s pledge for fair use on youtube should have any merit, the most copyright infringing platform on planet earth. We have had decades with copyright infringements, so much that whole generations of musicians have lost jobs and interest in music. He sounds like a Napster employee to me.
> 
> I think mr Beato takes this way too far, with no consideration of historical context. The ”free” paradigm has to stop, not be allowed to continue. I think mr Beato exploits his channel and his followers to political agitation against the common interests of working musicians. That he loses a couple hrs of work is besides the point. There should be no free ride to mr Beato or nobody else, Im sorry.


okay, except rick beato isn't the only one who feels this way - do you have counter to any of the points I made?

I watch very little of Beato and don't have any personal attachment to him, nor are my views influenced by his. I grew up being easily the best guitarist in my highschool, an absolute shredder - only to watch napster/limewire/irc/ect destroy any dream of being a paid musician myself. I didn't like what happened to the industry, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted to survive in it. But fair use is fair use.


----------



## Nils Neumann (Jul 29, 2020)

Symfoniq said:


> IIRC, many of Rick's videos are demonetized.


Youtubers don‘t make money with ads, they mainly have other ways now.


----------



## GtrString (Jul 29, 2020)

ProfoundSilence said:


> okay, except rick beato isn't the only one who feels this way - do you have counter to any of the points I made?
> 
> I watch very little of Beato and don't have any personal attachment to him, nor are my views influenced by his. I grew up being easily the best guitarist in my highschool, an absolute shredder - only to watch napster/limewire/irc/ect destroy any dream of being a paid musician myself.



what points?

Beato has his own tv channel on yt, where he tries to monetize his work. If a tv show uses 10sec of background music, they have to pay for a sync and master use license. He doesnt, why?

Beato does teaching for the public good? Welcome in the club, at uni I have to file all the sources I use for lectures, so the university can pay for the use of copyrights and intellectual property. Beato shouldnt, why?

Beato doesnt make any money? Well, but he builds a brand partly by exploiting those copyrights, so that he can make money selling couses ect to his followers. Beato shouldn’t compensate for building a brand on others work, why?

Sry, this is nowhere near “fair use” as I see it. It is more like lobby work for youtubers, in public.


----------



## Keith Theodosiou (Jul 29, 2020)

This could go pretty deep regarding broadcasting.
Say for instance Football, now i support Tottenham Hotspur. When a game is on at our stadium, our game music is the Darth Maul choral piece from Star Wars by John Williams. Now i assume that Tottenham have licenced that piece of music. But what about Sky Sports when they broadcast the match live, obviously they have paid all the proper fees to all the clubs for the rights to broadcast the games but what about the Star Wars music that just happens to be playing while they broadcast? Do Sky have to licence that music too? Seeing as they are making money from the viewer to watch the broadcast.


----------



## pinki (Jul 29, 2020)

GtrString said:


> Beato does teaching for the public good? Welcome in the club, at uni I have to file all the sources I use for lectures, so the university can pay for the use of copyrights and intellectual property. Beato shouldnt, why?
> .



Kinda hard to argue with this. If that’s how it is at university why would it not be the same on Youtube?


----------



## pinki (Jul 29, 2020)

Keith Theodosiou said:


> . But what about Sky Sports when they broadcast the match live, obviously they have paid all the proper fees to all the clubs for the rights to broadcast the games but what about the Star Wars music that just happens to be playing while they broadcast? Do Sky have to licence that music too? Seeing as they are making money from the viewer to watch the broadcast.



Yes.


----------



## GtrString (Jul 29, 2020)

pinki said:


> Yes.



Yes, they have to pay both a sync fee and a master use fee, and related to the Beato case, he claims that when he plays a snippet of a song that he shouldnt have to adhere to copyright law, but he dont understand that even if he plays part of a song himself (he dont use the master, fine, he can avoid the master use fee), he still exploits the copyright, and therefore need to compensate for the sync (syncronization of the copyright material to his images).

If mr Beato gets away with not covering for the sync, the whole music licensing business will go down in flames, as sync fees will be in danger everywhere, because they dont just make laws for mr Beato, they will have to make them count for everyone.

Youtube will love him, his followers will adore him, and the music licensing business will be in ruins. Everyone will be able to use copied copyrighted works in their media productions, no questions asked.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jul 29, 2020)

Paying for use of a study as a source is not the same as referencing a clip from an artistic work, these are things typically sponsored by an organization - and a study is quite the opposite of an artistic work(although both are IP).

Likewise, if they licensed duel of fates for a particular segment/team - that's because of the use it's getting, and it is in no way falling into the category of critique or transformative. 

To pretend than all IP is the same and should be treated the same is absurd. The legislation for a patent on a medication might share similarities with that of a poem, but the similarities stop pretty quick - and the laws of it's use should reflect that.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Jul 29, 2020)

GtrString said:


> Yes, they have to pay both a sync fee and a master use fee, and related to the Beato case, he claims that when he plays a snippet of a song that he shouldnt have to adhere to copyright law, but he dont understand that even if he plays part of a song himself (he dont use the master, fine, he can avoid the master use fee), he still exploits the copyright, and therefore need to compensate for the sync (syncronization of the copyright material to his images).
> 
> If mr Beato gets away with not covering for the sync, the whole music licensing business will go down in flames, as sync fees will be in danger everywhere, because they dont just make laws for mr Beato, they will have to make them count for everyone.
> 
> Youtube will love him, his followers will adore him, and the music licensing business will be in ruins. Everyone will be able to use copied copyrighted works in their media productions, no questions asked.




I.Just.Cant. 

One of the biggest parts of what makes a piece of music effective is it's structure and organization... if you think playing a 10 second snippet provides a form of entertainment that directly competes with listening to the full song, you're absolutely insane.

Likewise, that 10 seconds doesn't entitle them to the rest of the content of the video that was not created by them.


----------



## GtrString (Jul 29, 2020)

Its not about what I think, its the principles at stake. Structure and organization is free to use, without any copyright claims. But if you need a car, and don't own one, you will have to lend, rent or buy one at other peoples convenience. And if you need content produced by others, the same principle applies.

Beato are free to edit his videos, if he think the video is the important matter. But he is an influencer with 1.600.000+ subscribers and have an agenda. In context of the YouTube system, this is also Google's agenda. Google who tried to copy all library books in the world, without compensating any rights holders, and publish them on the Internet (or rather, in their own reader software), for free. Youtube is already a controversial platform regarding respecting rights holders, and Im sure they would like it a little easier. But that is just not the way the world goes anymore.

Look into the copy wrong movement, and the pirate parties in Europe (originating in the swedish Pirate Bay). They have similar agendas, and use the same anti-intellectual property arguments.

It would be appropriate if Beato would reveal his political views here, as many just seem to think it's the little man fighting against the big bad system. That is also the way mr Beato portrays this, while he at the same time uses his platform and fan base to lobby against rights holders everywhere in the world. Intentional/ unintentional? I don't know.

Hopefully the whole deal is more innocent than it looks. But the principles are for all of us, so that is why special treatments shouldn't be taken too lightly, imo.

Over and out.


----------



## jbuhler (Jul 29, 2020)

GtrString said:


> Beato does teaching for the public good? Welcome in the club, at uni I have to file all the sources I use for lectures, so the university can pay for the use of copyrights and intellectual property. Beato shouldnt, why?


This is not true in the US. Classroom teaching does not require clearance or payment of any kind as it is deemed fair use. Indeed even posting of copyrighted material to learning management systems for class use is considered fair use so long as certain requirements are met. It should be added that this is done on the basis of a claim of fair use. I do not think classes are considered public performances so they do not require performance rights licenses. I know our university has a license for its concert performances but I’ve never heard that it covers classes or lectures. Few of the claims of fair use in education have been litigated, and most of that has been around copying textbooks, workbooks, and physical music. There is little case law for guidance on fair use of copyrighted recordings and images in classrooms. So though this is the common practice in US colleges and universities, it could go away with an adverse legal ruling.


----------



## GtrString (Jul 29, 2020)

jbuhler said:


> ... even posting of copyrighted material to learning management systems for class use is considered fair use so long as certain requirements are met.



I am no expert on US law, but Beato is reproducing copyrighted material on a platform that is accessed by people all over the world, and not just by select students in a closed management system. In Europe we also have fair use, but that rarely covers a full article, and everything has to be documented and reported. 

True, "fair use" is a judgement on a case by case basis, considering the criteria in US copyright law Section §107 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

Problem here is probably mostly the second criteria, nature of the copyrighted work, which in this case is intended for market sale and not as free educational material (without permission).

Why wouldn't Beato just ask for permission first, then everything was clear about (fair) use/no use? (that's normal procedure).


----------



## FlyingAndi (Jul 29, 2020)

And don't forget that it's not only Rick Beato making money (directly or indirectly by selling his books) YouTube itself is also making money from Rick's (and anybody else's videos using their own or other peoples IP), by throwing in advertisements into the videos or between videos.
Leaving the money aside this might also lead to someones IP being used "near" an advertisement that the creator might never have agreed on.

That being said, I still love watching Rick's videos (more than Leland Sklar's who seems to be complaining about something in almost every second video.)


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 29, 2020)

A few things about fair use:

1. Education and critique are the main Fair Use examples. Rick Beato would certainly qualify, except he does so many of these that the profit motive becomes a factor, which puts it into the grey area. Personally I think Rick should still be good to go, because the educational part really is sincere. But ... it's definitely up for debate. "Fair Use" is subject to interpretation.

2. Profit is not a disqualifier in and of itself, though. News shows or even comedy shows can use copyrighted material under the Fair Use exemption if it's truly for news or _commentary_ (not just comedy) purposes. That's why Jon Stewart could show Fox News clips without permission, for instance. News shows can show clips from concerts or movies or whatever, as long as they adhere to the various rules. (Short as possible, for news or critique purposes, etc.)

3. Predictably, people try to push those boundaries. Years ago, a show called "Extra" stupidly used any music they wanted (including pop hits!) as underscore for their Hollywood and celebrity news show, claiming it was all for "news" purposes so it was therefore Fair Use. They got sued up the wazoo. Bad news for them, but good news for me and a handful of other composers, as they needed to create a legal library for them in a hurry.  (I think it was Extra. These crappy shows I've done become a blur after a while.)

4. It's a common misconception that parody is Fair Use. It is not. You need permission for song parodies. Weird Al, for instance, gets permission for all his songs. Even for the Bill Nye song parodies at the end of each episode, we needed permission, even though the show is educational.

4b. People will will sometimes claim their parody is a commentary, which would make it Fair Use. That's a stretch, and unlikely to work, although there are a couple times it did. Most famously when the Supreme Court ruled that 2 Live Crew's "Big Ugly Woman" was indeed a commentary (not parody) on Roy Orbison's "Pretty Woman."


----------



## jbuhler (Jul 29, 2020)

GtrString said:


> I am no expert on US law, but Beato is reproducing copyrighted material on a platform that is accessed by people all over the world, and not just by select students in a closed management system. In Europe we also have fair use, but that rarely covers a full article, and everything has to be documented and reported.
> 
> True, "fair use" is a judgement on a case by case basis, considering the criteria in US copyright law Section §107 https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
> 
> ...


Agreed, what Beato is doing is quite different than delivering course material to a closed class at an accredited institution of learning. I just meant to say that the practice of educational fair use differs by country, and the US allows fairly free use of copyrighted materials, especially audio and video recordings, in classrooms compared to other countries.

Nevertheless, from the few videos of his that I've seen, I think Beato's practice would qualify as fair use because it is critical commentary, transformative, and focused on education. None of that means that a court would determine his fair use is decisive, but (with the proviso of not being a lawyer, etc.) I think it likely that a court would decide in his favor if it ever came to that, which it never would because it would cost him too much money to find out. And educational use does not authorize just any use. Textbooks, for instance, have to meet a higher standard to qualify for fair use than do academic books and articles, because textbooks are seen as more marketable. (I suspect Beato's videos would need to meet a standard closer to textbooks.) And teachers aren't allowed to just copy texts and use those in lieu of a textbook, though there is a lot of gray area.

Then, too, different kinds of objects have differing standards. Publishing screen grabs or short transcriptions from film music qualify relatively easily for fair use because they are understood as partial objects. But publishing a movie poster or production still does not, even if you have extensive critical commentary of it, because they are understood as complete objects even if they are paratextually related to a principal object. Audio and audiovisual recordings, of course, have their own special rules as well that make determinations of fair use more complicated. At least, I think they do.


----------



## Polkasound (Jul 29, 2020)

Mike Greene said:


> It's a common misconception that parody is Fair Use. It is not. You need permission for song parodies. Weird Al, for instance, gets permission for all his songs.



This is something I've read into, because I've released material similar to Weird Al.

My understanding is that parody _is_ fair use, as long as you parodizing the lyrics and not using the music/melody to satirize some other topic. I'm known for satirizing polka music through parodied medleys of pop tunes, but I license the songs because Fair Use probably wouldn't save me in court, since every song in my medleys focuses on the same topic.

Weird Al, from what I remember, always sought permission because he wanted to, not because he had to.


----------



## proxima (Jul 29, 2020)

Polkasound said:


> My understanding is that parody _is_ fair use, as long as you parodizing the lyrics and not using the music/melody to satirize some other topic.



Yep, some forms of parody are definitely fair use. 









What Is Fair Use?


In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. ...




fairuse.stanford.edu













Parody: Fair Use Or Copyright Infringement - FindLaw


Parody: Fair Use Or Copyright Infringement. Find out more about this topic, read articles and blogs or research legal issues, cases, and codes on FindLaw.com.




corporate.findlaw.com







> The United States Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) stated in no uncertain terms that a parody as a form of criticism or comment could be fair use of a copyrighted work.


----------



## pinki (Jul 30, 2020)

The issue for Youtube is it ‘broadcasts’ into nearly every country in the world, thereby encountering multiple fair use laws. The USA’s interpretation is one of many. Hence the scorched earth approach?


----------



## Mike Greene (Jul 30, 2020)

Polkasound said:


> My understanding is that parody _is_ fair use, as long as you parodizing the lyrics and not using the music/melody to satirize some other topic.


I think so, too. 2-Live Crew won in the "Pretty Woman" / "Big Ugly Woman" case (that's the Campbell v Acuff-Rose case Pproxima linked) since they could claim they were poking fun at the original song, rather than just using the Pretty Woman melody for a new song.

When I said parody is not Fair Use, that was an overstatement on my part, since I encounter a lot of people (TV clients, for instance) who think the the parody exemption stretches further than it really does.


----------



## ProfoundSilence (Aug 1, 2020)

pinki said:


> The issue for Youtube is it ‘broadcasts’ into nearly every country in the world, thereby encountering multiple fair use laws. The USA’s interpretation is one of many. Hence the scorched earth approach?




This isn't untrue, except this is a senate hearing in the US on fair use.


----------

