Copyright Gestapo Take Down Hitler Parodies

[NYgs23]

YouTube Removes Hitler Parodies. Death of a Web Meme? (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/04/21/urnidgns852573C4006938800025770C001945D5.DTL)

Excerpts:

YouTube has recently begun removing videos that feature content from Constantin Films' 2004 film, Der Untergang ("Downfall"), despite the fact that many of these videos are parodies and thus constitute fair use of the material.


According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), these videos are being removed because of YouTube's automated Content I.D. system, which allows copyright owners to disable any videos that contain its content--regardless of whether the videos may be legitimate because they contain other elements. Many of the parodies are still up, as YouTube's Content I.D. system is not perfect--but it's probably only a matter of time before the filtering system hunts them down and removes them.

[Anti Federalist]

The meme in a meme so you mean what you meme:

YouTube - Hitler rants about the Hitler Parodies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqqxRPZdfvs&feature=player_embedded)

[South Park Fan]

Sounds like Constantin Films is killing the goose that lays the golden egg. I mean how many people do you think would have even heard of their movie if not for the meme?

[angelatc]

There was a discussion about this at Volokh. Just because something is funny doesn't make it a parody.

To be a parody, the video would be making fun of that Hitler scene in that movie. The Rant about the scene probably qualifies as a parody, because they're making fun of the company that made the video.

[low preference guy]

There was a discussion about this at Volokh. Just because something is funny doesn't make it a parody.

To be a parody, the video would be making fun of that Hitler scene in that movie. The Rant about the scene probably qualifies as a parody, because they're making fun of the company that made the video.

For many of us those nuances don't matter because we believe intellectual property is wrong anyway. And I don't say that as an anarchist, because I'm not one. But lots of people here don't consider intellectual property to be property.

Once something is out there, if you haven't signed any contract agreeing to not use it, you can alter and distribute it in any way you wish.

[Matt Collins]

There was a discussion about this at Volokh. Just because something is funny doesn't make it a parody.

To be a parody, the video would be making fun of that Hitler scene in that movie. The Rant about the scene probably qualifies as a parody, because they're making fun of the company that made the video.
Don't confuse parody with satire. Both fall under the fair use defense.



For many of us those nuances don't matter because we believe intellectual property is wrong anyway. And I don't say that as an anarchist, because I'm not one. But lots of people here don't consider intellectual property to be property.

Once something is out there, if you haven't signed any contract agreeing to not use it, you can alter and distribute it in any way you wish.Intellectual property isn't property, it's an exclusive privilege that the government grants to inventors, authors, etc.


.

[LibertarianfromGermany]

This is about the best publicity this movie could wish for, it's a shame for them that they're removing it. Also those videos have always annoyed me as a German. It's like when you're watching a normal English movies with english subtitles that just show something completely different, just not that funny.

[dannno]

To be a parody, the video would be making fun of that Hitler scene in that movie.

A parody (pronounced /ˈpærədiː/; also called send-up or spoof), in contemporary usage, is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation.


I think they qualify.

[angelatc]

For many of us those nuances don't matter because we believe intellectual property is wrong anyway. And I don't say that as an anarchist, because I'm not one. But lots of people here don't consider intellectual property to be property.

Once something is out there, if you haven't signed any contract agreeing to not use it, you can alter and distribute it in any way you wish.

They can believe anything they want, but that doesn't help. I'm of the mndset that if there's no profit involved...once the audio and/or video is out there in the wild, it's fair game.

I think it's pretty stupid to enforce this, especially on a YouTube clip, in that it's not the whole work. But seeing as that YouTube is using the material in a commercial fashion, I think the person who created the original should indeed be entitled to retain control of the content, even if they are asshats.

[angelatc]

A parody (pronounced /ˈpærədiː/; also called send-up or spoof), in contemporary usage, is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation.


I think they qualify.

I was merely citing what the lawyers' opinions were, not my own. Here's the thread. If you want to argue the legal definition of parody with them, have at it. http://volokh.com/2010/04/21/anything-you-can-do-i-can-do-meta/

[RileyE104]

someone should make a Hitler parody about YouTube removing the Hitler parodies!!!!!

I can just picture Hitler all pissed off and shouting about YouTube and the film creators trying to remove all of the parodies.... :D


lol, looks like someone was way ahead of me:

YouTube - Hitler reacts to the Hitler parodies being removed from YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBO5dh9qrIQ)

[BlackTerrel]

Do they not realize that no one even heard of their shitty movie other than in these parodies?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Did my first Hitler video today:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=241712