Disney All Mashed-Up

Final Group Web Project

Mulan. Dir. Tony Bancroft and Barry Cook. Perf. Ming-Na Wen, Eddie Murphy, BD Wong. Walt Disney Pictures, 1998. DVD.

The copyright to Mulan is owned by the Disney Corporation. Typically they require permission for the use of their materials and typically make their money through the production of movies and television shows, distribution of film and television related merchandise, and of course lawsuits. Our use of it could fall under fair use since we are only using a fraction of it and we aren’t profiting from it in anyway. Our use of the material does not diminish the quality or interfere with the market as per the fair use doctrine:

"The nature and substantiality of the material used--In general, when other criteria are met, the copying of extracts that are "not substantial in length" when compared to the whole of which they are part may be considered fair use. The effect of use on the potential market for or value of the work--In general, any use that supplants or diminishes the normal market for the original work is considered an infringement."

There are also exceptions made in the case of parody for the above stated reasons, especially that it does not diminish the market value of the work. Essentially as long as our work does not interfere with Disney’s ability to earn a profit from the movie in question then it becomes more difficult for us to be sued on the basis of copyright infringement.

Our mashing up of these different clips constitutes a visual and auditory collage. It’s really no different than when an artist cuts up photographs and rearranges them on a page. We are creating an abstraction of the original. The government does not arrest people for cutting up magazines and photos so why should it be any different from other media of expression? The only thing at play in the end is money.

Lasseter, John, dir. Toy Story. Prod. Bonnie Arnold, and Writ. Pete Docter. 1995. Film. 9 Dec 2012.

The copyrights for Toy Story belong to Walt Disney Pictures and Pixar Animation Studios. With the copyrights belonging to one of the biggest names in show business and a great studio like Pixar, the use of the film we use is most likely illegal. To get permission to use clips from Disney you have to write to the Permissions Department at the Disney organization and to get permission must be very costly since it is a very important movie to the franchise. There could possibly be some commercial impact for the use of our mash-up video between Disney movies and other movies that contain actors in the Disney movie. It would be used for comedic use, but only for mature audiences due to the explicit content of some of the lines used for the mash-up. In order for the video to be in clear compliance with the law we would need to require permission from the Permissions Department of Disney and also the other movies, this would be difficult with the content of the video displaying explicit language. Another way that the video could be in clear compliance with the law would be if the video was declared under the fair use copyright law, which could be tough to pass since one of the four factors in determining if the video is under fair use is that: The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.

Docter, Pete, dir. Monsters, Inc.. Dir. David Silverman, and Lee Unkrich. 2001. Film. 9 Dec 2012.

The copyrights for Monsters, Inc belong to Walt Disney Pictures and Pixar Animation Studios. With the copyrights belonging to one of the biggest names in show business and a great studio like Pixar, the use of the film we use is most likely illegal. To get permission to use clips from Disney you have to write to the Permissions Department at the Disney organization and to get permission must be very costly since it is a very important movie to the franchise. There could possibly be some commercial impact for the use of our mash-up video between Disney movies and other movies that contain actors in the Disney movie. It would be used for comedic use, but only for mature audiences due to the explicit content of some of the lines used for the mash-up. In order for the video to be in clear compliance with the law we would need to acquire permission from the Permissions Department of Disney and also the other movies, this would be difficult with the content of the video displaying explicit language. Another way that the video could be in clear compliance with the law would be if the video was declared under the fair use copyright law, which could be tough to pass since one of the four factors in determining if the video is under fair use is that: The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.

Forrest Gump. Dir. Robert Zemeckis.  Perf. Tom hanks, Robin Wright, and Gary Sinise. Paramount Pictures, 1994. DVD.

The copyright to Forrest Gump is owned by Paramount Pictures. Since Paramount Pictures is a household name, it is undeniable that usage of the film in a mash-up is illegal.   To obtain permission to use a clip from a Paramount film, one must address the permission department at Paramount Pictures headquarters in California. Since Forrest Gump is well renowned for its success, it would be wise to ask permission first unless one wishes to deal with Paramount’s extensive legal department – they rely on film sales for profit.  Since our mash-up contains clips from some of the biggest names in motion pictures, there could be some commercial impact. It would be used for comedic use, but only for mature audiences due to the explicit nature of our mash-up’s dialogue. Presentation of our video in a means that is in concordance with the would require consent from the Permissions Department at Paramount as well as the other movies. This could be a challenge considering the nature of our video’s content. The only remaining solution would be if our video became recognized to be in clear compliance with the law under the fair use clause. This would be difficult to pass since one of the four factors in determining if the video is under fair use is that: The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.

The Big Lebowski. Dir. Joel Coen. Perf. Jeff Bridges, John Goodman, and Julianne Moore. Polygram Filmed Entertainment, Working Title Films 1998. DVD

The copyrights for The Big Lebowski belong to Polygram Filmed Entertainment and Working Title Films. Polygram Filmed Entertainment is a large film corporation, which oversees Working Title Films, as well as other production companies. Since the copyrights belong to such an influential corporation, usage of the film in our mash-up video is most likely illegal. To get permission to use clips from Polygram, one must address its Permissions Department. Due to avid dispute over piracy on behalf of film corporations, it is likely that permission would be very costly; The Big Lebowski is also an extremely successful film. There is a chance for possible commercial impact for the use of our mash-up video between all the major production companies behind the films we chose. Our video would be shown for comedic purposes, however only for mature audiences considering the explicit content and subject nature of our mash-up. In order for the video to be in clear compliance with the law we would need to obtain permission from the Permissions Department Polygram as well as permission from any other production companies involved. This would be a challenge since the content of the video displays explicit language. Another way that the video could be in clear compliance with the law would be if the video was declared under the fair use copyright law, which could be tough to pass since one of the four factors in determining if the video is under fair use is that: The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work.

 Other Citations

Robin Williams Live on Broadway. Dir. Marty Callner. Perf. Robin Williams. Cream Cheese Films, 2002. DVD.

Temptation Sensation. Heinz Kiessling. Public Domain. Audio

The Implications of Remix

In Lawrence Lessig’s. Remix, copyright law is called into question due to new means of creative expression in the form of mash-ups and remixes. Development of these alternative forms of media reflects building on past ideas and copyright material, thus many legal, cultural, and economic issues are called into question.

The first dilemma mentioned is the issue of cultural impact. Remix cultures are reflections of building on past works; all of which manifest our culture. Lessig discusses some of the work done by John Philip Sousa regarding how cultures created and passed on information.  When discussing Sousa Lessig says:

In the language of today’s computer geeks, we could call the culture that Sousa celebrated a “Read/Write” (“RW”) culture… ordinary citizens “read” their culture by listening to it or by reading representations of it…This reading, however, is not enough. Instead, they (or at least the “young people of the day”) add to the culture they read by creating and re-creating the culture around them…”(Lessig, 28)

Lessig also states that Sousa’s biggest fear was that the RW culture would become a Read Only culture that was unable to produce art and would only be able to sit and consume. This is where the argument can turn to copyright laws. Lessig’s point is that copyright is restricting the RW culture by preventing consumers from “writing.” Though these laws are meant to protect creativity, they actually stifle it by placing restrictions on the pool of ideas. With these restrictions the new culture becomes one that can only view new culture and ideas but not ad to it, which severely limits the culture’s overall potential for growth. In relation to the Disney Mash-up video on this blog, there would have been no other conception for these characters other than what Disney had originally made. This sounds great for Disney but it shrinks the market place of ideas. Why should Disney's concept be any better than the new character concepts that the video provides? This seems like a trivial dispute but when this argument is applied to things like medical patents, it makes it difficult for doctors to create cures and treatments if they can't build off of each other's ideas. There are still doctors making these treatments obviously but the rate at which they do so has been severely slowed.

In the end, the majority of what the patent or copyright holder is interested in is the economic side. In the text, Lessig writes the story of a fourteen year-old girl who started an online newspaper that was essentially a Harry Potter fan-fiction site. Initially the author of Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling, and her publisher welcomed the fan-fiction and interest. “But,” Lessig writes:

“… the instincts of a brilliant writer are not always the instincts of a media company. As Rowling’s success migrated from the printed page to a major Hollywood media company, Warner, the “control” over what was now Warner’s “property” shifted from a storyteller to a pack of lawyers. As Marc Brandon, the twent-something Net-head Warner eventually brought in to deal with the problem they were about to create, explained, ‘Warner Bros. at the time…had never dealt with something the scale of Harry Potter. Certainly not online.’ So the company dealt with the Harry Potter questions in the way they had dealt with IP issues on the Internet.” (Lessig,206)

The way the company handled these infringements was using lawyers to intimidate a fourteen-year-old to cease and desist. Luckily Lawver was able to fight back with enough petitions and support to make Warner Bros. rethink their intimidation strategies. In relation to the mash-up made on this blog the economic side of the argument was not really as important to us as creators. The video was made in parody and in fun. The good news is that this could be the basis of an argument for fair use as the Fair Use Doctrine states:

"The nature and substantiality of the material used--In general, when other criteria are met, the copying of extracts that are "not substantial in length" when compared to the whole of which they are part may be considered fair use. The effect of use on the potential market for or value of the work--In general, any use that supplants or diminishes the normal market for the original work is considered an infringement."
Since these characters were taken out of context and replaced in a new and more original one, we have created a new character concept that is based on the original, but doesn't rip off the original character completely. Essentially what has been created is something new from something old. The video was also done for educational purposes which are also protected under the Fair Use Doctrine.This is argument may be slightly harder to use for the Lawver case however as her idea was using the original concepts in the same context however, the narratives that were written by her and her fanbase were original content. The grey area is telling someone to cease and desist when their idea is actually original but do to it's inspiration being copyrighted materials, it can't truly be called original content. 
 

This calls into question the legal implications of remix and copyright laws.  Lessig discusses a variety of laws that exist in American government that are the source of copyright issues faced by those part of the remix culture. Perhaps one of the fundamental ideas supported by Lessig is copyright law concerning ‘fair use’.  According to this portion of copyright law, there is a degree to which people have fair speech and can exercise usage of a portion of copyright material. As stated previously the Fair Use Doctrine can be used as a defense in the cases of parody and education. It can also be invoked if the material does not infringe upon the market value of the original concept. This is where the mash-up falls into a light shade of grey. While the video is protected by educational arguments and most likely by parody arguments, it has apparently been argued by Disney in the past that these new concepts of these old characters can damage the character's public image and more indirectly damage the image of Disney as a whole.
 It is critical that as citizens we understand the various legal, cultural, and economic implications of remix. It is necessary in order to understand that while these laws may seem to protect the public, they are in fact hurting the public by restricting the marketplace of ideas and slowing the progression of society as a whole.