
Buffy vs. Edward Remix Unfairly Removed by Lionsgate - dmuino
http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/2013/buffy-vs-edward-remix-unfairly-removed-by-lionsgate
======
ghubbard
This article is actually worth reading. It's actually written by somebody who
knows what they are talking about.

    
    
      "Buffy vs Edward remix was mentioned by name in the official recommendations by the US Copyright Office (pdf) on exemptions to the DMCA as an example of a transformative noncommercial video work."

~~~
Tichy
But what does it mean? What is an official recommendation by the Copyright
Office - an actual license to reuse stuff? Or just a recommendation with no
legal consequences at all?

So artists are supposed to create works employing fair use, and then hope
they'll get a recommendation by the Copyright Office? If yes, they can publish
their work, if no, they'll have to trash it?

------
greenyoda
The article links to an independently hosted HTML5 copy of the video, in case
you want to see it first-hand. It's very cleverly done, quite amusing (at
least if you're a Buffy fan), and definitely looks like fair-use:

<http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo>

~~~
hollerith
Man, those textual pop-ups are annoying!

ADDED. Version without the pop-ups:
[http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_36...](http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_360p.mp4)

~~~
javajosh
_> Man, those textual pop-ups are annoying!_

Amen. I find it hard to get upset about the takedown notice when _I_ want to
take it down for melting my eyes. Perhaps this is unfair of me, but there it
is. Thanks for the clutter-free link.

~~~
shardling
That was a tech demo for popcorn.js, showing how you could replicate the popup
video feel. The bubbles are overlaid on top of the html5 video and controlled
through javascript.

------
jessaustin
I think there is a real possibility that this maneuver could blow up in
Liongate's face. Presumably there are some important decision-makers who take
the argument for fair use seriously: that's why this dispute process exists in
the first place. This video is an exemplar of what normal non-lawyer people
would classify as fair use, if they're familiar with the concept at all. If
Liongate's lawyers are willing to get in the mud over a few ad dollars (rather
than the high-sounding crap we usually hear from the content industry), and
they get their way, then clearly the system requires more protection for fair
use. They might not have run this plan by all the suits at MPAA.

------
smsm42
Basically it looks like YouTube is too scared of lawsuits to acknowledge any
fair use rights exist at all. Either you agree with ads, or your content is
getting removed, the whole appeals process may work only if the content is not
actually copyrighted, but is completely useless for fair use grounds as
claimant can just repeat their claim of copyright ownership (which is true)
and have it deleted anyway.

~~~
anigbrowl
That's absurd. Youtube provided extensive avenues of dispute and appeal. I
think Lionsgate is wrong in this case (although I'm not wholly sure, because
using their source material for ~30% of the video is pretty substantial in my
view), but Youtube isn't there to act as a court or arbitrator. by law, it has
to respect the claims of copyright holders. It is not the agent of those
seeking to use copyrighted material on fair use grounds. The authors dispute
is with Lionsgate, not YouTube.

~~~
chc
> _although I'm not wholly sure, because using their source material for ~30%
> of the video is pretty substantial in my view_

It's a bit of a side track, but: Any commentary on a work could reasonably be
expected to feature that work substantially, couldn't it?

~~~
anigbrowl
I think there's a difference between quoting something in a review or as part
of a presentation about film theory (or whatever), and quoting it in the
context of a remix, where you're essentially engaging in fan-fiction first and
commentary as a distant second (because the commentary is implicit and
arguably subordinate to the entertainment function).

Now I am in favor of fairly wide latitude for this sort of reuse, which is a
big reason I favor much, much shorter copyright terms, and graduated copyright
at that (eg exclusive for 20 years, mandatory cheap licensing for the next 30,
PD after that - for example). But it's hard to ignore the rightsholder's
concern that this work is less about commentary than simply hitching a ride on
a currently-popular franchise. It's not cashing in, since the person isn't
trying to monetize it directly, but the person _is_ trying to build their
creative reputation from rearrangement of others' work, while denying any and
all revenue to the original creator.

As someone who has spent the last decade making films from scratch rather than
remixing others' work, I think this is pretty weak sauce, just as I think that
DJing falls far short of musicianship. I engage in both activities, but when
I'm DJing I don't consider that to be creatively equivalent to composing
something original. People who say all creativity is fungible are lying to
themselves.

~~~
gte910h
While a remix, it is also commentary on the work itself.

~~~
illuminate
If that was the case, RiffTrax would be in the clear for releasing all their
voiceovers with the original movies :)

~~~
gte910h
Rifftrax is commercial, this is not

Rifftrax is additive, not transformitive

The person designated by the federal government to recommend who is exempt
from DMCA restrictions recommended this work by name as an example of a work
that would be hurt by not having exemptions to Decryption prohibitions. They
considered it a valuable documentary.

>“Based on the video evidence presented, the Register is able to conclude that
diminished quality likely would impair the criticism and comment contained in
noncommercial videos. For example, the Register is able to perceive that Buffy
vs Edward and other noncommercial videos would suffer significantly because of
blurring and the loss of detail in characters’ expression and sense of depth.”
-Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, October 2012 (Page 133) Maria
Pellante

------
bjustin
Takedowns on YouTube are, for corporations such as the record labels and movie
studios, largely done under their ContentID system, not under the DMCA notice
system. Google has a reputedly poor process for disputes that can lead to DMCA
notices [1], but here it appears that the takedown was still ContentID rather
than DMCA.

This is the one-sided system that the free market got us, where Google
facilitates the removal of legal material. If you are lucky, you can get to
the point where you follow the DMCA's rules.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/youtube-
finally-o...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/youtube-finally-
offers-a-meaningful-contentid-appeal-process/)

------
ajanuary
So they got advertisment money based off something that was 2/3 content owned
by another big media company?

~~~
danielweber
Making money doesn't mean "not fair use." Just like not making money doesn't
mean "fair use."

~~~
ajanuary
By 'they' I mean Lionsgate.

For a period the video was up, but with advertisement revenue going to
Lionsgate. They were getting revenue from something that was largely someone
else's copyright. In spirit, if they think they should be getting money, then
Buffy's copyright holders should too.

Of course, neither should automatically be getting revenue, fair use and all.

~~~
chii
> Of course, neither should automatically be getting revenue, fair use and
> all.

that's not true - the author of the work should get revenue should they decide
to (but only if they decide to). Lionsgate is not the author of the work. Some
components of the work are from the copyrighted works owned by lionsgate, but
that is due to fair use, and thus lionsgate has no claim on the copyright of
the remix containing some of their stuff.

Fair use does not mean no revenue (nor does revenue even come into the
argument!).

~~~
ajanuary
By neither I mean Liongate and the owners of Buffy.

------
pervycreeper
While I agree categorically with the necessity of allowing fair use, and the
perniciousness of copyright cartels, I was nonetheless very tickled by this
whine:

>But sure enough when I checked my channel, Lionsgate was monetizing my
noncommercial fair use remix with ads for Nordstrom fall fashions which popped
up over top of my gender critique of pop culture vampires.

------
natmaster
Google needs a policy against doing evil.

------
cjensen
Doesn't look like fair-use to me.

The rebelliouspixels version, with its extensive on-screen critique is fair-
use since it appears to be a critique. But _if_ the original YouTube version
lacked that, then the video devolves into little more than a fanfic video by a
Buffy-loving Twilight-hater.

Even the rebelliouspixels version appears to contain far more "quoting" of the
original material than is needed for its critique.

~~~
ryusage
> This past summer, together with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I even
> screened the remix for the US Copyright Office at the 2012 hearings on
> exemptions to the DMCA. Afterward my Buffy vs Edward remix was mentioned by
> name in the official recommendations by the US Copyright Office on
> exemptions to the DMCA as an example of a transformative noncommercial video
> work.

It's definitely fair use.

~~~
cjensen
Was the screening with the on-screen captions?

~~~
ryusage
As to that, I have no idea. However, I would argue that the video is
absolutely fair use even without the captions. Ignoring that its status as a
critique is not strictly necessary for it to be fair use, the video would
still be a critique without blatantly spelling out its point in words.

------
discountgenius
> This is what a broken copyright enforcement system looks like.

Alright, so how do we fix it? How can content producers protect themselves
from legitimate copyright infringement on services such as YouTube that allow
unverified uploads on a massive scale?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
>How can content producers protect themselves from legitimate copyright
infringement on services such as YouTube that allow unverified uploads on a
massive scale?

That framing of the question is inherently biased. It assumes that if no good
solution can be found, some bad solution that solves _that_ problem is the
only alternative, regardless of whether it creates even more serious problems
for other people.

It also assumes that the "problem" is sufficiently major to justify the
implied "whatever it takes" approach to solving it. Notwithstanding that
substantially all of Hollywood's collected works are available on The Pirate
Bay and in a thousand other places, the studios continue to make record
profits. While an elegant solution to the problem you mention would be
convenient, the decidedly _inelegant_ approaches currently on the books or
theorized by pundits are not inherently superior to the default alternative of
doing nothing at all just because "something must be done" is a popular piece
of political rhetoric.

------
zokier
I think he could have waited the two weeks to get an answer for his counter-
notification before raising torches and pitchforks.

~~~
ghshephard
He's been responding, and responding to counter-responses, and then responding
to secondary-takedowns, then counter-responding to secondary takedown denials
for quite a while. I think it's appropriate to bring this into the public
view.

~~~
dromidas
Yeah he definitely did the due diligence before bringing it public...

On a side note, he did post his video here with popups that are basically an
"American Pie" like parody of popups in films... except that I think the
popups are supposed to be serious. They make watching the remix utterly
impossible though. <http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/popupvideo/>

~~~
jgeralnik
Direct link to the video:
[http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_36...](http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_360p.mp4)

or
[http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_36...](http://www.rebelliouspixels.com/downloads/Buffy_vs_Edward_360p.webm)

------
sigzero
Buffy? Pfftt....how about Blade!

~~~
jb17
You do realize that the video critiques gender roles in pop culture?

