Philosophical Vegan Forum

Based on my rudimentary understanding of Copyright laws, I am aware that if you change the work just enough it can be considered fair use. So while taking a movie and shrinking it into the bottom left corner, speeding it up, adding a filter, etc. may be changing the work, it isn't changing the work enough to be considered fair use. Here:

Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

Don't you wish that those last three things were the ones of main concern? Well sometimes when it's convenient. Anyhoo, I got a few questions about copyright. Now I know that YouTube's garbage system is pretty damn useless, but it should take down things that are obviously copyright infringement. For instance, there's a channel named Everglow that takes video game music and puts it up on YouTube (he doesn't only do that, he only did 2 video games technically speaking). Is what the dude doing fair use, or is he just getting lucky?

Also, when will you know when something is considered fair use? I heard that you have to see a judge about it, but I'm not to sure. That'd be a pain in the ass.

Oh yeah, and this has been bugging me since 2013. This requires a bit of backstory. You know that game I don't shut up about, Kingdom Hearts? You know how it has both Final Fantasy and Disney? You know how Disney had to borrow copyright from Edgar Rice Burroughs so they can make their Tarzan Movie back in the 90s? Ok, so, the guys at SquareSoft (that's what it was at the time) decided to put a Tarzan-themed world into the first Kingdom Hearts installment. There's even a disclaimer when you load up the game that says something about Tarzan property of Edgar Rice Burroughs, used with permission, etc.. Well, a short while after that the copyright expired, and Disney no longer had the rights to it, and it once again belonged to Edgar Rice Burroughs. Then Tarzan world never reappeared in any other Kingdom Hearts games... except for the HD remicks that was released nearly 11 years later. The Remicks included the original game's remastered version (Kingdom Hearts Final Mix, which was released a few months after the original, which had all the same cutscenes, with a few minor differences(only released in Japan)), along with 2 other games. Anyway, as I said, it has the original Kingdom Hearts FM, which had the original Kingdom Hearts worlds, ONE OF THEM being Tarzan's world (Deep Jungle). It still has the same copyright disclaimer in the beginning when you start it up just like in the original. The cutscenes are the same, and the only differences are improved graphics and re-orchestrated soundtrack. So what's the big idea? (If you have any trouble understanding, ask me.) Are the copyright laws different in Japan? I don't know Kingdom Hearts is the only entertainment I get from there.

Anyway, I did my google searches on these things, and I couldn't get a straight answer. Do any of you have the law-knowledge to answer my fucking questions?
Thanks.

Maybe instead of looking for specific definitions, check into companies that often sue people for infractions. I know Disney is insane about their material. It also depends on what you plan to use your images for. Some companies turn a blind eye to things like fan fiction or comedic parodies. I believe if you do cross the line, they will inform you and order you to "cease and desist". (Not a lawyer, but I've "heard" a lot more about people being ordered to stop using a character than people actually being sued for it, unless they refused to stop when notified.)

Not sure if that really answers my question..

Yeah, it's a fucked up system. Basically if someone has a copyright on an image, unless you get their written permission to use said image, you are in violation of the copyright. Using a 5 second clip of a Disney film in a movie review could be considered fair use, but using the same scene on a blog to make a point about whatever is a copyright violation. Parodies are violations if you use the images unless you change them significantly, but how significantly depends on whether they can "prove" you are using their images. Have you ever seen a daycare that has cartoons painted outside? Disney has been known to send cease and desist notices to them. I watch mlp parodies, but the makers of that show don't care, because it brings weirdos out of the woodwork who buy their merchandise and watch the show. Even something as simple as using a sound byte can be a violation if someone has copyrighted it, and there are groups of lawyers employed by companies who do nothing but buy the rights to a "boing" sound, then check to see if they can find anyone using it to sue. (They usually target large production companies with deep pockets, though.) Lot's of people violate copyrights everyday. Some do get lucky by not getting noticed, and some companies just don't care as long as people aren't profiting off it. That's why it's such a hard question to get a straight answer to. Chances are, it's a copyright violation and they "can" sue you if you continue to use the image, if they are so inclined. Fucking lawyers....