You tell me to cuss away but you ask for permission to slightly divert the thread? I have yet to understand your ethics
Ohio Filmmakers and Political Ads
- Thread starter sonnyboo
- Start date
A bunch of weirdo's who think that if we remove the government that everyone will play nice... YEAH RIGHT.
I'm mocking politics, not participating. Please, no one take offense.
Limit not remove. I l
ve you.
You tell me to cuss away but you ask for permission to slightly divert the thread? I have yet to understand your ethics
Dready is obviously a complex lady.... who can hijack my threads anytime.
Theft is theft. Regardless of the use. However, blame those that stole the footage and not the political person running for which the ad was created. I am sure that Strickland (or whomever was featured in the ad) was not aware of this theft. May not have even had a say in the actual clip(s) used. With all the ads surfacing, many by groups not necessarily under the control of the specific candidate (pacs and pol attack groups), with 27 days left till election day, ads will crop up quickly and often -- many times without the specific knowledge of the individual(s) that the ads were created for.
I hope that I am not out of order here. But I do create from 'scratch' political forums for people (not politicians) to vent their views. I wish more filmmakers and videographers would do the same. I am not trying to reign in on your comments (or those above) or self promote on your thread... I am just trying to give an example of what I mean (in the example below). Please be aware that the quality is not high definition, the reason for such was the speed for viewers to down load (and many have 'weak' Internet access). Much higher quality video was placed on other sights. This is just an example and was not used for self promote. I believe in the middle class and providing a means for them to speak out their views -- unedited and not stolen from some other location. comments
I hope that I am not out of order here. But I do create from 'scratch' political forums for people (not politicians) to vent their views. I wish more filmmakers and videographers would do the same. I am not trying to reign in on your comments (or those above) or self promote on your thread... I am just trying to give an example of what I mean (in the example below). Please be aware that the quality is not high definition, the reason for such was the speed for viewers to down load (and many have 'weak' Internet access). Much higher quality video was placed on other sights. This is just an example and was not used for self promote. I believe in the middle class and providing a means for them to speak out their views -- unedited and not stolen from some other location. comments
The video example did not come up in previous forum comment. So maybe this will work? ]http://www.youtube.com/user/stonepatterson#p/a/u/0/qFxEIcq5okA[/URL]www.youtube.com/user/stonepatterson#p/a/u/0/qFxEIcq5okA
Once again I am not trying to self promote on some one else's forum, just give an example of what I mean...
Once again I am not trying to self promote on some one else's forum, just give an example of what I mean...
Welcome to the political Fray, Stone!
I think this is the link you wanted...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFxEIcq5okA
((use the GO ADVANCED button, then select the YOUTUBE button, then only use the =NUMBER))
I think the name Jeremy Froughlin is a fake. They made the account up, then uploaded this one video. It's some coward that wants to attack politicians using filmmaker's stolen work, but hide behind the anonymity of the internet. Again, demonstrating the true convictions and basis of their personal politics - theft, cowardice, and slinging mud.
The stated purpose of Fair Use is this:
The use of a filmmakers clips in a political ad involuntarily easily to qualified in ANY of the 4 ways. Only #3 has any leeway, but who gets to determine how long of a clip is "Substantial"? A judge and jury.
I think this is the link you wanted...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFxEIcq5okA
((use the GO ADVANCED button, then select the YOUTUBE button, then only use the =NUMBER))
I think the name Jeremy Froughlin is a fake. They made the account up, then uploaded this one video. It's some coward that wants to attack politicians using filmmaker's stolen work, but hide behind the anonymity of the internet. Again, demonstrating the true convictions and basis of their personal politics - theft, cowardice, and slinging mud.
The stated purpose of Fair Use is this:
The use of a filmmakers clips in a political ad involuntarily easily to qualified in ANY of the 4 ways. Only #3 has any leeway, but who gets to determine how long of a clip is "Substantial"? A judge and jury.
Last edited:
Thank you for putting the clip up, that is one of six video clips that I shot on 10 2 10 in D.C. (and edited shortly there after). Trying to give average people the ability to speak out and be heard on the Internet. I do not spend much time on Indie Talk or other like forums, (cause my life is a constant 60 MPH) so I am not very good at URL placement and such.
As I wrote earlier, I have a problem with any form of theft. In the same exasperated breath, I think everything is political; it is not a good thing or a bad thing, just is. And unfortunately, theft is a very large part of politics for WE live in a republic (small 'r'), a Democracy (turning into a corporatocracy). We are a litigious society; a society of laws, BUT everyone gets burned in one way or another -- unless you are the top 2% of wealth and can afford to avoid justice or are financially able to manipulate the laws to your advantage. Sorry your stuff was stolen in the name of politics, but I have had lots of my stuff stolen over the years, so I sigh, cuss a few times and get on with life.
My two cents. I am not perfect, rich, famous or a crazy ego freak -- just someone who likes to make a lot of creative stuff (some is really bad and some not as bad) cause in the end; life is short but making stuff for me is fun.
As I wrote earlier, I have a problem with any form of theft. In the same exasperated breath, I think everything is political; it is not a good thing or a bad thing, just is. And unfortunately, theft is a very large part of politics for WE live in a republic (small 'r'), a Democracy (turning into a corporatocracy). We are a litigious society; a society of laws, BUT everyone gets burned in one way or another -- unless you are the top 2% of wealth and can afford to avoid justice or are financially able to manipulate the laws to your advantage. Sorry your stuff was stolen in the name of politics, but I have had lots of my stuff stolen over the years, so I sigh, cuss a few times and get on with life.
My two cents. I am not perfect, rich, famous or a crazy ego freak -- just someone who likes to make a lot of creative stuff (some is really bad and some not as bad) cause in the end; life is short but making stuff for me is fun.
Apparently someone thinks I am...
"Sonnyboo Sucks"
http://www.vimeo.com/15693561
All I can ask if anyone watches this, click on FLAG AS INAPPROPRIATE.
http://sonnyboosucks.wordpress.com is also there too.
They are claiming to be employed by one of the two candidates, but it's most likely this literally schizophrenic local filmmaker who I had to file an actual civil stalking protection order against a few years ago.
Years later, the guy is still following me online and watching what I'm doing. It's more than a little creepy.
Last edited:
Not to make light of what's probably a seriously annoying situation for you, but I find that guy's level of pathetic to be incredibly hilarious.
There were times I found it amusing... then he got scary. Me made threats in emails, then accosted me and my girlfriend at the mall with a camcorder. Stopped being funny around the time I went to City Prosecutor's Office.
Yeah, it always sucks when real life crazy intrudes on your peaceful existence.
(I'm not sure if that sentence made sense, to use Alcove's phrasing, I just had a bone
)
Hopefully he'll get back on his meds soon.
(I'm not sure if that sentence made sense, to use Alcove's phrasing, I just had a bone
)Hopefully he'll get back on his meds soon.
I flagged the video.
Oooo, I've watched all three and this will not turn out nicely, I'm afraid. I totally understand your rage, but whomever the candidate is you tagged as a 'pedophile' (regardless of your parodic intention), me thinks you may be hearing from him. That stalker response was reprehensible.
I've always been one who has considered any, and all, visual history as part of my toolkit, so I guess I don't have that sense of empathy for artists whose works are appropriated. (that's just my personal opinion, of which I won't argue). But I can certainly understand your fury and hope you, and the group of Ohio filmmakers, receive due justice according to the law.
I've always been one who has considered any, and all, visual history as part of my toolkit, so I guess I don't have that sense of empathy for artists whose works are appropriated. (that's just my personal opinion, of which I won't argue). But I can certainly understand your fury and hope you, and the group of Ohio filmmakers, receive due justice according to the law.
Dready is obviously a complex lady.... who can hijack my threads anytime.
It is moments like these when the mods just lower their heads in defeat.
sigh.
"Fair Use and Copyright"
Okay in this entire debacle over a Gubanatorial Candidate using clips of someone's short films to "demonstrate" that the actor in their opponents ad is in fact... an actor. They used someone else's copyrighted clips in their political attack ad without permission or compensation (while spending millions on advertising), they use as their defense the idea of 'Fair Use' to supercede the filmmaker's individual copyright. One one blog by a lawyer, where he greatly misrepresents the interpretation of the laws and cites no actual statutes, claims that using the clips is fair use.
Without legal representation, the filmmakers lose the control over their clips. And in the debate, which sadly has everyone sitting on their own political sides of the fence instead of standing on the principal of intellectual property theft. Yes, I am a little familiar with FAIR USE and what it means. It seems everyone siding with their candidate wants to believe that this was Fair Use and everyone on the other side wants to be outraged because they are on the other side.
I stand on principal here, not with political idiocy.
Direct from the United States Copyright Office...
1. The first factor is regarding whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit. To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new.
In this specific case, they are using someone else' copyrighted clips without stimilating creativity or enriching the general public in a POLITICAL AD. It's not advacing knowledge or creating a new work of art. This is where "Fair Use" gets gray, it's when a work is "transformative", meaning when you create an all new work from pieces of copyrighted works. The attorney on this other blog claims it's the very definition of "transformative" because the intent changed. The intent of the works, yes, but not the clips themsevles. They are being used as clips from a short film... one being used without permission. They are not a parody of the political ad, they are completely unrelated narrative films and being used in this advert for politics, they remain narrative films, only used as an example and without the consent of the copyright holders.
2. Nature of the work is pretty clear to. If the work is in the public interest, ala the Zapruder Film of the Kennedy Assasination, your personal copyright can be removed. It was deemed in to be something for the public.
In many cases, you can use "Fair Use" to use pieces of copyrighted material for criticism... but criticism of the work itself, not other works and not politicians. I think this is NOT a gray area in Fair Use law.
They are not using the clips of the short films to criticise the short films themselves. They are demonstrative that they are in fact short films and that the actor is an actor. This also negates the "parody" defense because they are not making a parody of the short films;
3. The amount of the work and Fair Use does not factor in this case because enough of the work is present to identify the piece and actors in it, including actors who did not work on any prior political ads.
4. The value of the work and if the Fair Use claim affects that is a very subjective concept. If your short film is used in a political smear campaign, it can obviously have adverse affects on it's "value". The filmmakers have been involuntarily sided with one political party. They can lose future investors for something they did not choose to do. They have a de facto affiliation with a negative ad campaign and a single
Okay in this entire debacle over a Gubanatorial Candidate using clips of someone's short films to "demonstrate" that the actor in their opponents ad is in fact... an actor. They used someone else's copyrighted clips in their political attack ad without permission or compensation (while spending millions on advertising), they use as their defense the idea of 'Fair Use' to supercede the filmmaker's individual copyright. One one blog by a lawyer, where he greatly misrepresents the interpretation of the laws and cites no actual statutes, claims that using the clips is fair use.
Without legal representation, the filmmakers lose the control over their clips. And in the debate, which sadly has everyone sitting on their own political sides of the fence instead of standing on the principal of intellectual property theft. Yes, I am a little familiar with FAIR USE and what it means. It seems everyone siding with their candidate wants to believe that this was Fair Use and everyone on the other side wants to be outraged because they are on the other side.
I stand on principal here, not with political idiocy.
Direct from the United States Copyright Office...
1. The first factor is regarding whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit. To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new.
In this specific case, they are using someone else' copyrighted clips without stimilating creativity or enriching the general public in a POLITICAL AD. It's not advacing knowledge or creating a new work of art. This is where "Fair Use" gets gray, it's when a work is "transformative", meaning when you create an all new work from pieces of copyrighted works. The attorney on this other blog claims it's the very definition of "transformative" because the intent changed. The intent of the works, yes, but not the clips themsevles. They are being used as clips from a short film... one being used without permission. They are not a parody of the political ad, they are completely unrelated narrative films and being used in this advert for politics, they remain narrative films, only used as an example and without the consent of the copyright holders.
2. Nature of the work is pretty clear to. If the work is in the public interest, ala the Zapruder Film of the Kennedy Assasination, your personal copyright can be removed. It was deemed in to be something for the public.
In many cases, you can use "Fair Use" to use pieces of copyrighted material for criticism... but criticism of the work itself, not other works and not politicians. I think this is NOT a gray area in Fair Use law.
They are not using the clips of the short films to criticise the short films themselves. They are demonstrative that they are in fact short films and that the actor is an actor. This also negates the "parody" defense because they are not making a parody of the short films;
3. The amount of the work and Fair Use does not factor in this case because enough of the work is present to identify the piece and actors in it, including actors who did not work on any prior political ads.
4. The value of the work and if the Fair Use claim affects that is a very subjective concept. If your short film is used in a political smear campaign, it can obviously have adverse affects on it's "value". The filmmakers have been involuntarily sided with one political party. They can lose future investors for something they did not choose to do. They have a de facto affiliation with a negative ad campaign and a single
Some people have found this thread and want to claim that I am being two faced about asking that the Sonnyboo Sucks video removed (which is already being removed) while claiming Fair Use for my own video...
I guess I should be clear.
Do I think I violated copyright? HELL YES. That's the entire point of my video. I'm using their thin, cheap justification for my video on the basis of "Fair Use" just like them.
If my video should be removed, so should theirs for using clips without permission. My video is a CLEAR parody and not to be taken seriously. What's their excuse?
The real point of this is, if Fair Use were valid in the way everyone is describing, it would be legal to compare a politician to Darth Vader, then you would be legally able to use clips from the Star Wars movies in your political ads. No one does this because they would get sued by Lucasfilm, and the SOLE difference in this scenario is that they are using clips from a local poor independent filmmaker because they know they have more money than him.
THAT IS WRONG.
I'm standing for a principal and defending the rights of a lowly, poor independent filmmaker's copyright. It's just sad that "the people's party" is screwing someone, claiming "Fair Use" and turning around and spending MILLIONS OF DOLLARS on smear campaigns. I hate both political parties.
I guess I should be clear.
Do I think I violated copyright? HELL YES. That's the entire point of my video. I'm using their thin, cheap justification for my video on the basis of "Fair Use" just like them.
If my video should be removed, so should theirs for using clips without permission. My video is a CLEAR parody and not to be taken seriously. What's their excuse?
The real point of this is, if Fair Use were valid in the way everyone is describing, it would be legal to compare a politician to Darth Vader, then you would be legally able to use clips from the Star Wars movies in your political ads. No one does this because they would get sued by Lucasfilm, and the SOLE difference in this scenario is that they are using clips from a local poor independent filmmaker because they know they have more money than him.
THAT IS WRONG.
I'm standing for a principal and defending the rights of a lowly, poor independent filmmaker's copyright. It's just sad that "the people's party" is screwing someone, claiming "Fair Use" and turning around and spending MILLIONS OF DOLLARS on smear campaigns. I hate both political parties.
Last edited: