Are AMVs Illegal?

[Sanji07]

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. ^_^

[Kaligraphic]

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.

[Sanji07]

Thanks. ^_^ I was wondering because I have enjoyed watching AMVs in the past, and was shocked to find clues of them being illegal. So even if there is a disclaimer from the creator, it's still illegal to make/show AMVs?

[Doubleshadow]

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.

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.

[animewarrior]

*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*

[LadyRushia]

It should be fine if you give credits. Then again, the big companies hate teh intranetz. If you somehow managed to make sure your AMV can't be downloaded, then you couldn't get in trouble for distributing the images and clips.

[Sanji07]

*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*

I have an obsession of watching AMVs, so I see your point of view and agree. How can the Numa Numa Dance and Batty Rap be illegal? o_o

[mechana2015]

I would like to point out, in a general statement about major companys, that Tokyopop (or Viz... can't remember which) was one of the sponsers of the AMV contest at Anime Expo last year, so I would consider that as a bit of indicator as to their stance on AMVs.

[minakichan]

Nope, all illegal. Your ripping footage AND music, none of which belongs to you. What's funny is that anime conventions totally condone illegal activity in their AMV contests and such.

Drawing fanart, writing fanfiction, and using other people's images on the internet is all illegal too, even if credited, as long as you don't have the creator's express permission. Apparently, this is why a lot of Japanese fansites don't use any official images; Japanese companies will actually get angry at them for it. Also, you and nearly everyone in this topic (can't tell about Kaligraphic) are all breaking the law just by using your avatars.

Apparently, even using it for parody is no good (despite what the law claims), seeing as LittleKuriboh's work that contains Yu-Gi-Oh! footage has also gotten wiped off of YouTube.

Isn't it exciting? This is why I hate copyright law.

[Kurama]

Youtube did the same thing last year. "We are going to delete all copyrighted material (AKA Anime)

Thats when I privated all my AMVs and had not made AMVs since.
But yeah, I have been awaiting for youtube to react. It kinda saddens me, but its illegal.

[termyt]

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.

"Acceptable" and "Legal" are sometimes different things. It's acceptable to drive 60 in a 55 zone, but it is technically not legal.

Any AMV done for profit would certainly turn heads and invite lawsuits. Since most, if not all, AMV's are done at the expense of the person making the AMV creating a net loss instead of even breaking even, there's a lot less to sue for. It is unlikely that, since the violator made no money, the rights holder would be able to sue successfully for compensation. The best they could hope for is a court-ordered cease and desist with a small punitive reward.

AMV's are tolerated because they generally do not detract from the original product and costs of prosecuting a lawsuit for out pace any kind of compensation they would expect to receive. Not to mention, suing your fans is still considered bad business for many outside of the music industry.

A lot of AMV's I've seen also could qualify for "fair use" of copyrighted material. Fair use laws allow for properly credited excerpts of copyrighted material to be used by third parties without compensation or permission. (Of course, many of those use a piece of copyrighted music in it's entirety as well, so they would be subject to copyright laws for the music, if not the anime clips used.)

Isn't it exciting? This is why I hate copyright law.

Parody is protected, but YouTube does not have to allow anything to be shown on their site. They must comply with the law, but they can go much farther in what they restrict. When a complaint comes in, I doubt they spend a lot of time considering whether the disputed work is legally protected parody or not. (And in this case, using someone else's intellectual work for parody is fine, but you still can't take their animation work and use it. You have to make your own.)

As complex as it is, I don't think that getting rid of copyright law is such a good idea, though. I'm pretty sure the entertainment industry would be a small fraction of its size if those who make a living creating and using original works could not longer make a living doing it. Who would spend $200 million to make a movie if it got basically one weekend of theater time before everyone who wants it could own it on DVD for $3? (Assuming anyone actually spent the time to develop and manufacture the DVD player knowing that a month after the first player was released, there'd be a hundred cheap knock-offs).

[AsianBlossom]

Interesting...so do record companies and other legal people really care about AMV contests held by conventions?

How can the Numa Numa Dance and Batty Rap be illegal? o_o

Oooh...I think I've seen the first one, and I know I've heard (the movie version) of the latter...and seen Scar from the Lion King sing part of it. XD

[minakichan]

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

Let me rephrase that: This is why I hate copyright law as it is. Copying a song and claiming it as your own? Bad. Giving a character in your novel an addiction of Coca-Cola products? I honestly think it's ridiculous to prohibit that.

[Nate]

The only thing I don't understand about copyright laws is this.

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.

By the same token, I can completely, completely understand 20th Century Fox telling people on youtube with entire episodes of Family Guy uploaded to take them down. I mean, if someone can view an entire episode online, they probably won't buy the DVD. However, why do they insist on forcing people to take down ten second clips? Again, that's free advertising, and most people only upload the funniest parts, it's not like you can take 200 ten second clips and watch the whole episode that way (besides that'd be a friggin' annoying way to watch a show).

[minakichan]

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.

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]

...
So I can't even write and/or post fanfiction or have an icon of Yami screaming "Eek! Spider!" without breaking the law? O_o This is scary...I've been watching AMVs for 2 years without the thought of breaking the law...Can YouTube at least tell us these things before making an account or something?

[termyt]

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.

[ilikegir33]

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

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

I don't think AMV's are illegal, as long as you give credit.

[Roy Mustang]

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

Copyright reasons in the US, they would have had to pay Pizza Hut rights to use the logos. Its one of the things that had to be edited out for Adult Swim. Not sure if they will still be edited out, when they release it on dvd.


[color="Red"][font="Book Antiqua"]Col. Roy Mustang
[/font][/color]

[minakichan]

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

I should think so, but for some reason, I hear Japanese copyright holders forbid fansites from using official images, as much as possible. =/

[Sanji07]

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.

That's a relief. @_@;; Even if AMVs are illegal, it's nice to know we can at least use anime icons.

[termyt]

I should think so, but for some reason, I hear Japanese copyright holders forbid fansites from using official images, as much as possible. =/

Fansites can be seen as "profiting" from their use. Even if they are not making money, they stand to increase traffic on their sites and could use the property to advertise or promote something that the rights holders would disagree with.

[TriezGamer]

Interesting...so do record companies and other legal people really care about AMV contests held by conventions?

A friend of mine who worked on convention staff for several years told me that the convention will secure rights for the music shown in AMV contest halls -- If that is true or not, I don't know -- but that's what I've been told.

[Etoh*the*Greato]

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?

without express knowledge of everything done in that Manga they're taking a risk by letting companies offer them the free advertising. People associate the two products together and if the Manga starts pushing an image or idea that Pepsi doesn't like, (Imagine Pepsi advertising in Sailor Moon with Mamorou and Usagi dating when she was 14 and he was in his twenties). It's risky, so they probably just don't do it.

[Rocketshipper]

I just had a copyright claim filed against one of the AMVs on my youtube account (Its a Digimon Frontier video, using the song "I Need a Hero"). But they didn't tell me to take it down, instead, the copyright holders get to stick extra ads on that page, and keep track of how many views it gets. lol.

[Bobtheduck]

I think where the authors support fanworks that DON'T MAKE MONEY (such as J.K. Rowling's support of Harry Potter fansites, fanart, and fanfiction, but not of the published, sold for money form of the Lexicon), there is no need to worry about anything. As Rocketshipper said, it really depends on the copyright holder in question. If they ask you to take it down, take it down, but many of them don't mind. I think it's really up to each specific copyright owner, not one broad law. The idea behind copyrights is that the owner gets to choose how his or her content is used. What sucks is when the owner is not the creator or author of said content, but the publishing company, as is the case with a lot of music.

Most record companies are not very friendly with their content, but I believe they are slowly easing up. If they weren't Sony wouldn't be offering media sharing in Home and warner wouldn't offer full music videos on Youtube.

[inuyasha89]

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. ^_^

Well, you said they were going to remove ones without disclaimers, so just throw a disclaimer on all the ones you made and you're golden.

Example: "I do not own the anime or music shown here".

Simple as that.

[Sakaki Onsei]

I sent off this link to the main organizer of AMVs for a specific Pacific Northwest Con, and hopefully he will be able to give the legal opinions...as he is much older and has dealt with the issues on a year to year basis for nearly 10 years.

[Sakaki Onsei]

Apparently, my colleague at K-con forgot his password to this place...SO, he has asked me to post this for him:

[BEGIN]

and hopefully he will be able to give the legal
opinions...

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

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.

[Sanji07]

@ inuyasha89: Thanks. My friends told me that also, but I wanted to make sure.

@ Sakaki Onsei: I appreciate you asking your friend to answer my question. ^_^

So AMVs with disclaimers are not illegal? *just trying to make sure ^^;;*