- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Congrats LSUFreek............... Yahoo !!
Posted on 4/14/10 at 10:12 am
Posted on 4/14/10 at 10:12 am
Recent article on Yahoo about Jim Nantz criticizing Tiger Woods. Middle of article there's a link to a Phil/Tiger/Elin spoof created by freek. Not sure if this has been posted yet or not but CONGRATS either way.
Tiger/Phil Spoof
Jim Nantz on his high horse
Tiger/Phil Spoof
Jim Nantz on his high horse
This post was edited on 4/14/10 at 10:16 am
3
Posted on 4/14/10 at 10:16 am to Big Fat
that is awesome
Posted on 4/14/10 at 10:20 am to LSUFreek
Oh I didnt see it earlier.... pretty cool man.
Posted on 4/14/10 at 10:21 am to Big Fat
:lo: check out the comments some people were pissed
This post was edited on 4/14/10 at 10:27 am
Posted on 4/14/10 at 10:24 am to Sammobile
quote:
check out the comments so people were pissed
Nice job Freek!
Posted on 4/14/10 at 10:49 am to xGeauxLSUx
Freek,
What are the laws, about using footage from a movie like that. Does Yahoo have to pay a usage fee??? Just curious.
What are the laws, about using footage from a movie like that. Does Yahoo have to pay a usage fee??? Just curious.
Posted on 4/14/10 at 11:08 am to LSUFreek
Posted on 4/14/10 at 11:50 am to NashvilleTider
quote:
Freek,
What are the laws, about using footage from a movie like that. Does Yahoo have to pay a usage fee??? Just curious.
Ok, I've been holding this in for a while:
First, I know for sure they don't pay studios for rights to publish the material on the internet, but would take them down in an instant if Universal or somebody else claimed copyright to avoid any kind of a lawsuit.
The real question is whether or not farks are covered under "Fair Use" copyright laws. You know, when SNL or Mad does a spoof of a movie, even though the characters in the sketch are based on characters from a studio film, the act of making it a "parody" or "satire" or using it for news-worthy comment, is allowed. (EX: news networks show a controversial clip before the movie even opens.)
I see no difference with satirical/parody farks. How are they different from editorial cartoons? If a cartoonist draws Obama with a Darth Vader mask to make a comment of parody, how is that different if someone here puts the Vader mask on Saban?
I would even go far as to add that I made each frame of my gif a work of art, in that I did something to each and every frame, which is something the studio didn't create. Ex: How does Perez Hilton get by with using photos that are not his? He simply puts an MS Paint line of jizz or mustache somewhere on the picture, and now the picture is a "work of art".
But I read some web blog supposedly run by a lawyer, and he insists all farks are completely uncovered by Fair Use laws. Another said it has to have "parody" or make "news-worthy" comment to be covered.
Bottomline is I have no clue.
Posted on 4/14/10 at 11:54 am to LSUFreek
Brian Scalabrine is calling for you FREEK.......
Yahoo will make a play at this one too, theres no way they can turn away something that majestic
:jump2:
Yahoo will make a play at this one too, theres no way they can turn away something that majestic
:jump2:
Posted on 4/14/10 at 12:01 pm to LSUFreek
Thanks Freek. I deal with copyright laws and royalties here in Nashville. Just got to thinking about it. Your work it great as always. I'll do some research here and see if there has ever been case law about it.
This post was edited on 4/14/10 at 12:02 pm
Posted on 4/14/10 at 12:09 pm to NashvilleTider
quote:
I'll do some research here and see if there has ever been case law about it.
Would love to get some solid info. That would be great!
Posted on 4/14/10 at 12:47 pm to LSUFreek
Found this LINK
It's a lot, but I read it all and think that Farking would fall under the heading "derivative work" and not only would we be protected from lawsuits, but we can actually copyright our works as well. Below is the basic definition. I was told that right now, copyright law is a mess because of Youtube and the new media/social networks. There is a ton of confusion out there.
Derivative Rights
Derivative rights are the authorizations to extract, insert or edit content. An example of derivative rights is the use of text from a book or article in a presentation or another article.
Derivative rights as they apply to content include extracting, insertion and changing content. Extracting (using sections) is the selection and removal of content for use in another work. Inserting (embedding) is the pasting of additional content (e.g. such as a editorial comment) within an existing content item. Changing (editing) content is the modification of any content or expression of a content item. ( to Marcel Duchamp the father of Fark)
It's a lot, but I read it all and think that Farking would fall under the heading "derivative work" and not only would we be protected from lawsuits, but we can actually copyright our works as well. Below is the basic definition. I was told that right now, copyright law is a mess because of Youtube and the new media/social networks. There is a ton of confusion out there.
Derivative Rights
Derivative rights are the authorizations to extract, insert or edit content. An example of derivative rights is the use of text from a book or article in a presentation or another article.
Derivative rights as they apply to content include extracting, insertion and changing content. Extracting (using sections) is the selection and removal of content for use in another work. Inserting (embedding) is the pasting of additional content (e.g. such as a editorial comment) within an existing content item. Changing (editing) content is the modification of any content or expression of a content item. (
to Marcel Duchamp the father of Fark) This post was edited on 4/14/10 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 4/14/10 at 2:42 pm to NashvilleTider
quote:
NashvilleTider
Thanks a bunch, NT. This is very helpful.
I'm going to study up as much as I can on derivative rights. The definition matches exactly what we do.
I mean, practically every fark I do involves some extraction from one source, inserted onto another source, and usually invloves some editing of the 2nd source to match the insertion.
Viva la Marcel Duchamp!
Posted on 4/14/10 at 5:10 pm to LSUFreek
Freek I emailed one of the authors of an often quoted work on this subject from that Wiki article. (figured what the H#@@) He responded to me, and while not giving me a direct answer to our question he told me to read this. Scroll down toward the bottom. "On add-on programs"
LINK
he also said to read this.
LINK
LINK
he also said to read this.
LINK
Posted on 4/14/10 at 8:11 pm to NashvilleTider
If I comprehended everything correctly, the second link divides the issue into three subset categories we farkers could fit into:
1. Copyright-Liable Derivative Work:
Defendant takes copyright-protected elements.
Has no valid defense.
Later work is infringing derivative work. Defendant is liable.
2.Infringing Derivative Work
Defendant takes copyright-protected elements.
Defendant may or may not have a valid defense.
Taking is substantial.
Later work is prima facie an infringing derivative work, subject to possible defenses
3.Derivative Work
Earlier work contains, among other things ideas, facts, scenes a faire, non-original elements, functionally dictated aspects, elements that have few or no alternative modes of expression.
Earlier work also contains copyright-protected elements.
Defendant bases later work in part on earlier work.
So let's break down one of my gifs:
1. I started with about 90 frames from Universal's copy-righted movie "Happy Gilmore" (which also included frames with a "Subway" sandwich logo on Happy's T-Shirt).
--I altered the order of some of the frames (the Elin Woods character scene at the end of the gif originally appeared in the middle of the two flipping-in-the-air)
-I altered some frames by removing some original elements such as hair, parts of the necks, and parts of the faces.
2.I added faces of sports figures from various Googled images, some that did & did not come from copy-righted photographs/websites. (Some photos of Tiger co-incidentally have Nike logos on them as well).
-I desaturated the colors of all the added faces in the gif to match the color of the Happy Gilmore footage
-I also added word balloons and lettering.
3. The purpose of the gif was to visually relay news of the Masters result to the news-seeking readers on the Sporting Blog.
- I made a visual metaphor of the sports headline that by Phil Mickelson winning the Masters he effectively "crashed" the highly anticipated comeback of Tiger Woods to golf.
- I also satirized public figure Elin Woods as having a penchant for approving of all-things-violent to her husband.
- It's arguable the end result was no longer recognizable as a scene from Happy Gilmore as evidenced by the vile comments of Tiger "support" made by readers on that Yahoo Golf Blog.
While 10 to 20 percent of each original Happy Gilmore frame has been altered by extraction, insertion, & editing, and it's final comment is one of satire & news-worthy content, it's hard for me to see this gif not falling into the subset category #2 of "Infringing Derivative Work" which may or may not have a defense.
Or am I way off base?
1. Copyright-Liable Derivative Work:
Defendant takes copyright-protected elements.
Has no valid defense.
Later work is infringing derivative work. Defendant is liable.
2.Infringing Derivative Work
Defendant takes copyright-protected elements.
Defendant may or may not have a valid defense.
Taking is substantial.
Later work is prima facie an infringing derivative work, subject to possible defenses
3.Derivative Work
Earlier work contains, among other things ideas, facts, scenes a faire, non-original elements, functionally dictated aspects, elements that have few or no alternative modes of expression.
Earlier work also contains copyright-protected elements.
Defendant bases later work in part on earlier work.
So let's break down one of my gifs:
1. I started with about 90 frames from Universal's copy-righted movie "Happy Gilmore" (which also included frames with a "Subway" sandwich logo on Happy's T-Shirt).
--I altered the order of some of the frames (the Elin Woods character scene at the end of the gif originally appeared in the middle of the two flipping-in-the-air)
-I altered some frames by removing some original elements such as hair, parts of the necks, and parts of the faces.
2.I added faces of sports figures from various Googled images, some that did & did not come from copy-righted photographs/websites. (Some photos of Tiger co-incidentally have Nike logos on them as well).
-I desaturated the colors of all the added faces in the gif to match the color of the Happy Gilmore footage
-I also added word balloons and lettering.
3. The purpose of the gif was to visually relay news of the Masters result to the news-seeking readers on the Sporting Blog.
- I made a visual metaphor of the sports headline that by Phil Mickelson winning the Masters he effectively "crashed" the highly anticipated comeback of Tiger Woods to golf.
- I also satirized public figure Elin Woods as having a penchant for approving of all-things-violent to her husband.
- It's arguable the end result was no longer recognizable as a scene from Happy Gilmore as evidenced by the vile comments of Tiger "support" made by readers on that Yahoo Golf Blog.
While 10 to 20 percent of each original Happy Gilmore frame has been altered by extraction, insertion, & editing, and it's final comment is one of satire & news-worthy content, it's hard for me to see this gif not falling into the subset category #2 of "Infringing Derivative Work" which may or may not have a defense.
Or am I way off base?
Posted on 4/14/10 at 10:24 pm to LSUFreek
He said that the question you have to ask is, "Is the later use TRANSFORMATIVE" Imo your .gif^^ is definitely transformative. If it's transformative you have a defense. I read somewhere today, My head hurts from reading legalese, that if it's transformative, lawyers/company's won't waste their time taking/filing a suit like that.
A defendant that prepared a second, derivative work on the basis of a first work is excused from copyright liability if the second work
* does not actually or potentially divert trade in the marketplace to itself from the first work;
* provides the public with a previously unavailable, very useful function of the kind that copyright law exists to promote.
LINK
On the other hand he writes,
"Unfortunately, the risk with that approach to analyzing transformation is that every case is sui generis. What does it mean for an addition to a work to be transformative in a qualitative sense other than for the observer to exclaim, "I know it when I see it"? Not only is that test unhelpful for purposes of prediction and rationalization of business activity, but it provides no clue for migrating the test from epater le bougeois to framing or otherwise changing the presentation of another person's Web page. As yet, no decision explains that. Moeover, much of the current commentary on transformation leaves that term without objective substantive content. Indeed, transformativeness is becoming one of the black holes of copyright law. It swallows anything that approaches it and no light emerges from it. "
Glad that is all cleared up (screw it), now I can go back to making mildly offensive racial satire using rare colored penguins.
A defendant that prepared a second, derivative work on the basis of a first work is excused from copyright liability if the second work
* does not actually or potentially divert trade in the marketplace to itself from the first work;
* provides the public with a previously unavailable, very useful function of the kind that copyright law exists to promote.
LINK
On the other hand he writes,
"Unfortunately, the risk with that approach to analyzing transformation is that every case is sui generis. What does it mean for an addition to a work to be transformative in a qualitative sense other than for the observer to exclaim, "I know it when I see it"? Not only is that test unhelpful for purposes of prediction and rationalization of business activity, but it provides no clue for migrating the test from epater le bougeois to framing or otherwise changing the presentation of another person's Web page. As yet, no decision explains that. Moeover, much of the current commentary on transformation leaves that term without objective substantive content. Indeed, transformativeness is becoming one of the black holes of copyright law. It swallows anything that approaches it and no light emerges from it. "
Glad that is all cleared up (screw it), now I can go back to making mildly offensive racial satire using rare colored penguins.
This post was edited on 4/15/10 at 10:13 am
Posted on 4/15/10 at 1:08 am to NashvilleTider
quote:
your .gif^^ is definitely transformative
I agree.
IMO, its commentary does not take potential money out of the wallets of the Happy Gilmore producers/Nike/Subway, and it provides a satirical news-worthy element that was not present in the Happy Gilmore movie.
Thanks for racking your brain with me. I feel much more at ease. I also hope this eases the concerns of any other farkers who may have read our rote posts of legalese.
.
This post was edited on 4/15/10 at 1:10 am
Posted on 4/15/10 at 3:44 am to LSUFreek
great topic guys...does this cover fark pictures as well?
I heard if you change a source pic enough you can own it (art)
very subjective to me...also if a picture on google is not taged or watermarked, its very tough to sometimes find the source of the picture for permission. We tried to use a few pics for our charity auctions and could not find the source.
again: great info
I heard if you change a source pic enough you can own it (art)
very subjective to me...also if a picture on google is not taged or watermarked, its very tough to sometimes find the source of the picture for permission. We tried to use a few pics for our charity auctions and could not find the source.
again: great info
Posted on 4/15/10 at 9:41 am to LSUFreek
If the issue ever did arise I'm sure we could find many people here willing to testify as to the transformative nature of freek's creations.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News