CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Kaligraphic (post: 1224284) wrote:Use of audio/video material is subject to copyright restrictions, so an unauthorized AMV would potentially violate multiple copyrights. It is, however, not worth the while of most copyright holders to pursue such cases.

It is possible to extract the audio for youtube videos, meaning that the RIAA no doubt sees youtube as another of the billions of horsemen of the apocalypse, but the video copyright holders probably won't care as much, as they are of a saner, less apocalyptic bent, and produce works significantly longer in duration, greater in scope, and different in nature than that which is used in AMVs. They still could sue, but it simply isn't as worth their while. ($200/hr lawyers get expensive real quick.)

If you have created the video and audio yourself, then you would hold copyright to it, and it would thus be legal for you to upload it as your own. AMVs, however, use video from anime and music from the publishers to create a derivative work, in violation of copyright law. In a strict interpretation, then, unlicensed AMVs are therefore illegal. If you have license from the copyright holders of all material used in an AMV to use the works in that case, then you can use that AMV without breaking any laws.

Where it gets more interesting is that if you create an unlicensed derivative work, copyright on that work belongs to you, even if the copyright on components of it does not. You would still be legally liable if you distributed it, but at the same time, the copyright holders couldn't just use your derivative work, even though they own the copyright on the material it's derived from.


So, basically, the short answer is that yes, AMVs are typically in violation of various copyrights, and no, most copyright holders don't care, except for the music rightsholders, which unfortunately are quite sue-happy.

I haven't heard anything about youtube removing AMVs, so I can't comment about that.

animewarrior (post: 1224302) wrote:*reads previous posts* RUNS AWAY!***** NOOOOO if they sue me I don't know I'd do!! *has an obssession with creating AMVs* I add credits and EVERYTHING....sure I don't call up or email the company that the anime is from or the band/artist for permission but.....COME ON...I think that this problem is pretty small compared to the amount of crap people post on the net... CRACK DOWN ON CYBERBULLYING OR SOMETHING!!!....and yes I am ranting *walks away irritated*

Doubleshadow (post: 1224301) wrote:Could you provide a source on that? I was under the impression that AMV's were acceptable as they are not for profit, and stated to be such.

minakichan (post: 1224353) wrote:Isn't it exciting? This is why I hate copyright law.

Sanji07 (post: 1224323) wrote:How can the Numa Numa Dance and Batty Rap be illegal? o_o

As complex as it is, I don't think that getting rid of copyright law is such a good idea, though.

If I put a Pepsi ad on Youtube, Pepsi will likely file a complaint and force me to take it off.

WHY? Do they not realize that it's free advertising for their product? They don't have to pay a single cent for all the people who would come by and view my upload of their commercial.

minakichan (post: 1224531) wrote:.......Hey wait, did they edit out all of the Pizza Hut ads in the Code Geass dub?

ilikegir33 wrote:Yes, they did. I don't know why, though.

Icons and avatars probably fall under "fair use" of copyrighted material so long as you are not profiting from them.

termyt (post: 1225623) wrote:Icons and avatars probably fall under "fair use" of copyrighted material so long as you are not profiting from them.

I also see a difference in criminal law and civil law. While both can land you in hot water there's a different standard for compliance.

In criminal law, braking the rules is (or should be) clearly defined with clearly defined consequences.

In civil law, as long as you are not profiting from use of copyrighted material and you are not abusing the use of said material or claiming it is your own, you should be OK. At least OK enough that you would need to be served with a formal request to cease using said material before you would find yourself in legal trouble.

Civil law also requires the victim to take action (in most cases). In short, use your best judgment. Remember that some people make their living inventing and using their own intellectual property. Abusing their property for your own ends can harm the livelihood of the rights holder.

Ask yourself that, if you owned the rights to whatever you were using and you depended on those rights for your income, would you be offended or upset if someone did to that property what you are doing to it.

If you are using it for your own profit - that's stealing
If you are calling it your own - that's plagiarism
If you are using it in a way that detracts or perverts the original intent of the work - that's slander (with a small proviso for parody)

If you are using it in a way that's consistent with the artist's wishes and not abusing the use of the work then I would say you are OK, however, the wishes of the rights holder are paramount. If they say no, respect their wishes. If they say OK or remain silent, it's OK to continue.

minakichan (post: 1225744) wrote:I should think so, but for some reason, I hear Japanese copyright holders forbid fansites from using official images, as much as possible. =/

AsianBlossom (post: 1224491) wrote:Interesting...so do record companies and other legal people really care about AMV contests held by conventions?

minakichan (post: 1224531) wrote:Yeah, I went to a certain manga industry panel a few years back, and I think it was Viz that explained that in the Whistle! manga, a lot of the character wear sports apparel from Nike, Adidas, etc, and when translating and adapting it for America, Viz has to go in and edit out every single instance. They were kind of bewildered about it too-- free advertising, come ON-- but I think they asked the companies about it and the companies said no.

.......Hey wait, did they edit out all of the Pizza Hut ads in the Code Geass dub?

Sanji07 (post: 1224274) wrote:One or two weeks ago, I was flipping through Anime Insider. My eyes fell on a letter from an otaku talking about watching Japanese subs without American dubs on the internet. The editor disagreed and said it's not worth it because that's illegal. A few days ago, a friend of mine added a post to my bulletin saying Youtube was going to delete AMVs in September. My friend said they had to hae a disclaimer in order to be legal. What if it just has copyrights? Or if the user just states the vid is purely fan-made? Any info is appreciated. ^_^

[BEGIN]

Sakaki Onsei wrote:and hopefully he will be able to give the legal
opinions...

OK - LEGAL DISCLAIMER - I am not a Lawyer... so this is just OPINION.

Sakaki Onsei wrote:as he is much older

Oh, thanks, I needed
that. And my doc told me my blood sugar and triglycerides are high too.
Thanks....

We're in a grey area here. It's infringement, but what individuals get
hauled into court to 'splain themselves is: "is it indeed ILLEGAL
infringement, or is it a fair-use exception to infringement?

Much of this is a battle of words and culture. RIAAs tactic is to use
the scary-sounding word 'unauthorized' and from there they try to bully
you into believing that 'unauthorized' = 'illegal,' but that's NOT TRUE
- in our current legal climate, whether infringement is illegal or
exempted can ONLY be determined in COURT, each and every time. Obviously
this can get expensive, and very few individuals can afford to take
these guys to the mat. Some have and they have even won judgements
against RIAA - (which RIAA seems to be appealing or trying to walk away
from in some instances.)

Some countermeasures available to us are also cultural in nature]de
facto[/I] in the wrong unless they grant you permission. My term
connotes that you're free or at least you haven't been forced to
stop - yet, or at least not here, not now. Ask a German what 'Alles
Verboten' society meant. It means that if I invent a new toy and played
with it in a park, some goon in a uniform would come over say 'Do you
have a permit for that?'

'Unauthorized' is another scary-sounding, you're-already-in-BIG-trouble
kind of word. The countermeasure here is "Ever heard of an Unauthorized
Biography of a celebrity?' Why yes. Because the writer doesn't need
the celebrities permission to publish his own opinions (libel and
slander not-withstanding.)

We don't NEED your authorization...to express ourselves, or to make
our comments about YOU. Remember that. (Hey, anyone know where I go
to get a money-changer table-flipping permit?)

'Unauthorized Duplication.' For this one, tell all your friends about
people who reload ammunition for hobby and sport shooting. Why you can
take a Winchester brass cartridge, some Dupont-Remington nitrocellulose
powder, and a Speer or Nosler bullet, and make an (unauthorized)
'remix.' You can even cast your own lead, and if you're really
enthusiastic you can swage your own custom, copper jackets into bullet
shapes of your own design. If you're over 21 you simply do
NOT need anyone's permission to do this, even if you
are making exact duplicates of some manufacturer's commercial product,
for your own personal use. Now ask these reloader enthusiasts what
they'd tell a company that told them they'd have to 'register' their
presses & reloading dies, log their production and allow the company (or
government) to review these logs, create only factory-approved
variants, or seek prior permission from the manufacturers and patent
holders of all those pullet and casing designs and dimensions...
(Ummmm, "NOT!")

The deal with duplication came to a head days of the
phonograph-music-to-cassette, then make 5 cassettes for my friends days.
Wasn't the first time: Music artists of 100 years ago tried to get Mr.
Edison to design some sort of pay-per-play system into his music
cylinder machines. "It's not fair that I sang once, but the end consumer
can play this cylender any number of times over, but I don't get paid
even though he derives enjoyment from EACH play of MY SONG, waaa, waaa,
waaa." The legal term that came out was (get this) distribution in
non-commercial quantities. What took Napster down was that it was
hard to argue that 1,000,000 downloads was a 'non-commercial quantity.'
Evidently, the judge didn't think so...

All in all I'd wager that AMVs are (a) infringing, but (b) not
criminally so, and (c) many might be affirmatively defended as
(protected) PARODIES of the original works. To get away with parody, you
have to make some easily discernible changes to the original art, so
that the viewer or listener can tell that a lampooning, or derivative
commentary is taking place. Parody is formidably protected speech an is
also included in the Fair Use doctrine. And (d) your personal volume of
distribution is non-commercial in scope and nature.

Legally bomb-proof? Of course not, (heck, after the Supremes handed down
'Kelo,' what is...) but it's a matter of changing the way
people you interact with THINK about these issues.

Lastly - this infringement enforcement silliness has spread to CLOTHING
EMBROIDERY hobbyists - taking bmp images of trademarks, licensed sports
team logos, etc and applying them to their own shirts and other fabric
creations. In some cases copyright holders gain some traction, but as it
turns out they are mostly suing a bunch of peoples gramdmas, whenever
one of those companies sends out a C & D, well, Mr. Company, you've just
shot yourself in the foot because her ENTIRE FAMILY will now QUIT using
your product and also BAD-MOUTH you to your family and friends... (Oops,
what happened to market share...)

In some cases the copyright holders have succeeded in extorted monies
out of Grandma, but again, in other cases they have been told to go
pound sand - especially in the case of parody works or derivatives
inspired but sufficiently altered from the protected work.

With cheap-to-free tools like WMM to Premiere to AfterEffects to Final
Cut, we are *all* movie directors now. The big-pro industries just
haven't figured out the end implications of powerful tools dispersing
into the masses.. The next step to the last frontier will be when
animation software becomes cheap and easy enough to use that a
grade-school kid cam create his own 'Toy Story' variant - modeling
characters and backgrounds from scratch yet with ease, which used to
take teams of animators months, back in the dark old animation days of
LOTR CGI... Imagine how a renaissence-era oil painter would marvel at
anyone today driving Photoshop...

We are already a 'remix' (acquire, alter, and redistribute as current
commentary) culture, no longer a 'record' (immutable-content media) culture.