So, is it fair use to steal a music video, replacing the original artist with yourself as the star, while keeping most of the music video the same otherwise with the original song? A parody? (Click the top image/screencap; the video wouldn’t embed, sorry)
Like this music video to the left, for example. Warning: there are probably other legal issues, like how this 9 year old girl is sexualized, and it’s kind of disturbing.. It’s so wrong/ridiculous.
I have no info on it, but this was brought up in another one of my classes. I imagine her parents paid a lot to get this done professionally. I’m thinking it’s not the same as singing karaoke, but I’m sure there are places where you can make your own music video… It’s just that this is really elaborate. The costumes are identical with wigs and all. So what do you think? I couldn’t quite watch it, but I skipped through and the video looks like it’s the same till the end. (Again, sorry, it’s so wrong and creepy, but it’s an example!) EDIT: it’s been removed, so I guess it wasn’t okay.
And I just want to add how unfortunate yet complicating it is that clothes don’t have a copyright. To the left is a photo of Trovata suing Forever 21 for copying their clothes, with no success (Forever 21 on top and Trovata on the bottom). Well, it’s not like Trovata invented stripes, right?
I actually thought of Forever 21 while reading “how copyright got a bad name for itself” (I think thats the one where fashion is mentioned). I’ve seen clothes from there that look so incredibly similar to abercrombie but never considered they were borrowing designs from bigger designers. I think this is a real problem. I mean, I can’t complain because I love buying an adorable top for $20 but I can understand how it is effecting the designer market. But then again it is sort of like buying a fake D&G on canal st… everyone knows its fake haha.
Although I didn’t get to see the video in enough time, it seems from your description that the video was a derivative work of the original “Toxic” video. The only transformative aspect of the video appears to be the actual girl as the performer rather than Britney. As Carroll points out in “Fixing Fair Use,” one of the categories of fair use includes amount and substantiality of the portion used. The work that was taken was not only quantitatively large but also qualitatively the heart of the music video (or so I would imagine that was the reason it was taken down). Even if the piece of information copied is not a large piece of the original work, it still may not be given fair use protection if that small piece is indeed the real heart of the piece. Oh the case by case basis of copyright law!
Wouldn’t this be an issue that ASCAP would go after? I didn’t get a chance to see the video, but if she’s re-recording the song and keeping the same composition, it’s an issue regarding the publisher, no? But if she was lip-sinking to the original recording then the record label could go after her. I’d be curious who requested it to be taken down. Either way, it shouldn’t be up in the first place so I’m siding with the big bad wolf on this one.
Don’t know enough about fashion to comment on the Forever 21 case…sorry.
In light of our class discussion about the role of metaphor in the copyright debate, I think it is particularly interesting that New York Magazine article you link here focuses on the central role of metaphor in the arguments of the attorneys for both Forever 21 and Trovata. I think that Jessica Litman would certainly appreciate the parallel of fashion to apple cobbler advanced by Forever 21. However, one could argue that an author doesn’t invent English words or a musician doesn’t invent musical notes, yet he or she still holds rights over the combination made up of these parts. One has to wonder why copyright hasn’t been expanded to include fashion and recipes. Do Americans not view these two arts as capable of intellectually advancing society, or have designers and chefs lacked the political and financial power to successfully lobby for the protection of their works?
Here’s a 2006 statement submitted by the U.S. Copyright Office to the House Judiciary Committee on “Protection for Fashion Design”:
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/regstat072706.html
[scroll down past whatever they're saying about "vessel hull" design to the "Proposed Legislation: Protection for Fashion Designs" section.]
It reads, “Proponents of such legislation have provided the Office with anecdotal evidence that fashion designers are harmed by the sale of “knockoffs” of high-end fashion designs. To be persuaded of the need for such legislation, we would have to see more such evidence, as well as some evidence quantifying the nature and extent of the harm suffered by fashion designers due to the lack of legal protection for their designs.”
It sounds like this case could potentially be “more such evidence” that chains like Forever 21 are encroaching upon higher-end designers’ clothing markets. Granted, there’s probably a considerable economic gap between F21 shoppers and those of Trovata (I myself belong to the former camp), but I’d still say these are blatant knock-offs in ornamentation as well as design.
And in the spirit of knock-offs… I’ll wear my own Forever 21 designer copy to class tomorrow [i.e. this shirt here: http://www.thebudgetbabe.com/archives/471-Luxe-vs.-Less-Phillip-Lim-Yellow-Tank.html
“I’m thinking it’s not the same as singing karaoke, but I’m sure there are places where you can make your own music video…”
http://www.recordahit.com/cdrecordingbooth.html
There are karaoke booths where people can burn CDs on the spot. People step into the booth and sing along with a backing track, and when they step out, there’s a CD waiting for them. They’re very popular in Asian countries (Philippines, Japan, China) and they’re usually featured in shopping malls. I haven’t seen them in the US, but Google tells me that there are suppliers in the US. I don’t know what ASCAP would make of them. There’s been a lot of controversy around these booths because sometimes the booth suppliers fill the mp3 selections with pirated songs. The suppliers make money off of these songs because people have to pay money to enter the booth and sing, plus, they pay extra to take a copy of the CD home.