Warning About Communications & Media Questions
|
Mahalo Answers is a great place to start your research into Communications & Media questions, but it's not the final answer. Mahalo Answers is not a substitute for informed professional advice. If you desire or require professional advice, please consult a qualified provider who is licensed in your state or country. You should always seek independent professional advice before acting on any opinion, advice, or information available on Mahalo Answers. |
answered question
0
Votes
Votes
3
Answers
Answers
M$3.00
What are the limits to video sampling / superimposing celebrities on 'other things'? (eg Thundercats vs Pr0n)
So I was watching the amazing Thundercats spoof making the rounds today. If you haven't seen it, some dude superimposed faces of Hugh Jackman, Vin Diesel, Brad Pitt and others on to the cheezy Thundercats characters and produced a reasonably slick trailer.
...but what are the limits to this? Anybody see the Sarah Palin porn knock-offs? So here's a (NSFW) hypothetical question: if one superimposes the face of a major celebrity (e.g. a 10 or 15 second 'compliant' clip) onto some nasty hardcore porn, has a law been broken? I'm so confused! How long before the Thundercats spoof is actually Debby does Dallas and stars some famous actress, a few world leaders and so on...
any **legal** insights/links you can steer me toward regarding this kind of 'fair use' video sampling and spoofing (video, not music)? Anything that discusses 'general' versus 'adult' (e.g. the Palin photoshop debacle)?
...but what are the limits to this? Anybody see the Sarah Palin porn knock-offs? So here's a (NSFW) hypothetical question: if one superimposes the face of a major celebrity (e.g. a 10 or 15 second 'compliant' clip) onto some nasty hardcore porn, has a law been broken? I'm so confused! How long before the Thundercats spoof is actually Debby does Dallas and stars some famous actress, a few world leaders and so on...
any **legal** insights/links you can steer me toward regarding this kind of 'fair use' video sampling and spoofing (video, not music)? Anything that discusses 'general' versus 'adult' (e.g. the Palin photoshop debacle)?
answers (3)
The biggest dangers here seem to be with libel or slander. So long as a reasonable person would not think the videos were real then there is not much danger. But if you do such a good job at video editing that one could mistake a superimposed head in a porno for an actual celebrity (who was not actually in the video, but was digitally added) then you would run into some real legal problems. Especially if the fact that it was intended to be a spoof was not immediately clear. Generally if it is clear that it isnt actually the celebrity or that it is intended to be a spoof then are in safe waters.
Pring v Penthouse is a good example of this spoof vs real-life problem faced by those creating parodies. http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/432456
An entry on libel and slander can be found here which has some more references to cases http://books.google.com/books?id=s5M86S5ZlC0C&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=penthouse+slander&source=web&ots=lwIyjQXP3F&sig=z2_EGCl2Wu_6gVSm98G7Zj1xKLQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA113,M1
Finally, if it is something you are going to be making a profit off of rather than just expressing yourself or creating art then there is a whole new set of problems that arise if you were using the celebrities likeness to profit.
Another gray area arises when looking at if you had the right to use the original footage. That is much more of a fair use issue, and that is exceedingly messy these days. The current practice seems to be post it, then fight it if you want if you get a cease and desist order.
Pring v Penthouse is a good example of this spoof vs real-life problem faced by those creating parodies. http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/432456
An entry on libel and slander can be found here which has some more references to cases http://books.google.com/books?id=s5M86S5ZlC0C&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=penthouse+slander&source=web&ots=lwIyjQXP3F&sig=z2_EGCl2Wu_6gVSm98G7Zj1xKLQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA113,M1
Finally, if it is something you are going to be making a profit off of rather than just expressing yourself or creating art then there is a whole new set of problems that arise if you were using the celebrities likeness to profit.
Another gray area arises when looking at if you had the right to use the original footage. That is much more of a fair use issue, and that is exceedingly messy these days. The current practice seems to be post it, then fight it if you want if you get a cease and desist order.
source(s):
http://books.google.com/books?id=s5M86S5ZlC0C&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&am...
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/432456
http://books.google.com/books?id=s5M86S5ZlC0C&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&am...
http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/432456
| Asker's rating: |
thank you for the legal citation - exactly what i was looking for! and yes, i agree that some video editing software is pretty incredible - look at what some dude at home with that thundercats spoof, now just imagine that it's nancy pelosi riding ron jeremy, etc...
copyright law is as confusing as law can get.
what can you get away with? good question.
what will get you in trouble? good question.
"fair use" exists, but isn't well defined by law.
the first amendment allows you to make a parody of just about anything. but just because you will (probably) win the lawsuit doesn't mean it won't cost you to defend.
you're less likely to be sued for something non commercial rather than something you're selling. (won't stop them!)
what can you get away with? good question.
what will get you in trouble? good question.
"fair use" exists, but isn't well defined by law.
the first amendment allows you to make a parody of just about anything. but just because you will (probably) win the lawsuit doesn't mean it won't cost you to defend.
you're less likely to be sued for something non commercial rather than something you're selling. (won't stop them!)
you could probably be infringing upon their image rights, as you are using their likeness. If you did something derogatry or crass as well with their likeness, then I suppose that they could claim you are abusing their human rights.
the lines are very blurred though, it's extremely difficult to discern what is 'legal' or 'illegal'
and it's especially hard to enforce on the internet, as animosity is practically the foundation of the internet
the lines are very blurred though, it's extremely difficult to discern what is 'legal' or 'illegal'
and it's especially hard to enforce on the internet, as animosity is practically the foundation of the internet
'human rights' abuse is a very heady path to go down - do you know of any links or legal discussion of this particular subject? (per the original question) - i'm looking for any case examples or legal precedent...
Related questions
140 characters left
ask any question
