The defendant is innocent by the claim of fair use. Professor Faden claims his use of Disney Studio’s movie clips is fair use. The purpose of using the clips was to teach students about fair use. In 1984 the court case Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp. , Universal Studios sued Sony Corp. for their Betamax recorder, which allowed public to record whole episode of a TV show. While the technology allowed people to record whole episodes of a show it was ruled fair use because the purpose in which the device was being used was good. The device did not deprive the copyright owners of revenue. People weren't selling the recorded tapes they were just watching them later. So take this court case ruling and apply it to this one. Professor Faden’s purpose is to teach and his using of Disney’s works isn't taking away their profit.
The nature of his work was to mix little parts of movie clips to teach students about fair use. His work was a transformative work meaning that he changed the original creative work into a brand new work with different meaning. In the case SOFA Entertainment, Inc. v. Doger Productions, Inc, the use of a small clip was ruled fair use under it being a transformative work. The Jersey Boys musical used a seven second clip from the Ed Sullivan show was used in the show to the musical history of the
…show more content…
Four Seasons. The judge wrote in the case ruling “By using it as a biographical anchor, [the defendant] put the clip to its own transformative ends.” If we apply this ruling to our case, then Faden’s use of the clips should be ruled fair use. “Federal law allows citizens to reproduce, distribute, or exhibit portions of motion picture, video tapes, or video discs under certain circumstances without authorization of the copyright holder.” This is an excerpt from the FBI warning that is shown before a Disney Motion Picture.
Professor Faden used only a portion of Disney movie clips and only used necessary amounts that were needed for is teaching. The excerpt also states later that using the parts of the movie is legal for the purposes of criticism, news reporting, parody and teaching. Professor Faden’s use follows all circumstances using only the necessary small portions and used them for
teaching. Faden’s work caused no market harm to any of the Disney Studio works nor did it take any one of the work's place on the market. Disney has made over 23.69 billion dollars in revenue over the past year in their media networks alone. Their total revenue including products and studio entertainment is over 55.63 billion dollars, and they’re predicted to grow in the years to follow. The professors work clearly cause no damage to their profits and his work did not stop customers from buying Disney’s works instead. The Plaintiff may argue that cost and effort put into creating the stories and characters were violated. However, Faden’s use did not take away and value from the characters or the stories. In fact, Faden didn't use any of the story lines or plot in his work nor did use use Disney’s characters in a negative light. Therefore, Professor Faden is innocent of infringing of the copyrights of Walt Disney Studios.
They hired three different lawyers to handle their case, (which if you ask me, that's a clear sign that they know we have the upper hand in this case) two of them were clearly there for research purposes only, the other's name was Mister Smith, he stood up to give his opening statement. “While it is true that the video was made for educational purposes, to edit or show even small portions of films requires a public performance license, the only way to obtain this license is to have direct permission from the copyright owner. The only way this could be fair use is if he showed it to a small group of people such as a classroom and never put it online, this of course did not happen. We are not trying to stomp out small creators that just want to make educational content, we just want things to be fair.” He sat down next to the rest of his colleagues with a seemingly smug look on his face, like he thought he had this case in the bag. All company lawyers were like this, since large companies usually win court cases unless its something huge that could legitimately damage the company's image. I give my last statement before we leave the courtroom and let the jury decide Mister Faden's fate. “Despite what Mister Smith may have said about “not stomping out the little guys” they do it all the time. If someone wanted to make a necklace with the mickey silhouette and sell it
“Anyone else who uses copyright material in those ways will infringe copyright unless they have permission from the copyright owner or a special exception applies. One act may result in the infringement of several copyrights” (Film & Copyright, 2012, p. ...
Tokyo Disneyland was opened to the public on April 15, 1983. This amusement park was owned and operated by an unrelated Japanese corporation. The Walt Disney Company received royalties, paid in Yen, on certain revenues generated by Tokyo Disneyland. This new overseas business venture was bringing some concern about the foreign exchange risk to Disney. The management team at the Disney has been considering hedging future Yen inflows from Disney Tokyo since 1985. Mr. Anderson, the director of finance at The Walt Disney Company, focused his attention on a possible 15 billion ten-year term loan with an interest rate of 7.5% paid semiannually. On the other hand, Goldman Sachs, who had been working with Disney on this problem, presents a rather unusual but potentially attractive solution: Disney could issue ECU Eurobonds and swap into a Yen liability. Goldman Sachs suggested them to create a Yen liability by swapping 10-year ECU Eurobonds with a sinking fund, the all-in costs of which were denominated in Yen.
His work in modern media was revolutionary. Moreover, he broadened communication and made it easier to learn about new cultures. Disney’s movies play a vital role in children’s development and their productivity when they enter the “real world”.
Even something as simple as adding animation on top of recorded sound allowed a work to become remixed. Kota Ezawa added simple animation on top of the recording from the First OJ “Simpson Trial” and by doing so, he took something that was meant to be a recording solely for court records and turned it into a dramatic narrative that conveys many of the emotions displayed by the defense and prosecution when the final verdict was read.
This article was a very interesting look at the music industry and how copyright vs. sampling works in that field. It made me think of copyright lawsuits in fine art and how the courts determine if an artist copying or was inspired by a work.
Walt Disney himself once said that he does “[...] not make films primarily for children [...].” Therefore, his ...
So how is Disney getting away with something that any beginner in animation would get called out on? Kendrick argues that it wasn’t down to limited time, lazy design or the fact that it’s in CG, but rather an unsettling...
If a girl was going to search for her Prince Charming, the first place she should look is in the world of animation. Animation has probably been around since the beginning of time. Although, the artwork that originally resembled animation was only one or two cels, animation today is made up of hundreds or thousands of cels.
Music Copyright is a very important aspect of the music industry. The Copyright law was established to preserve the creativity and rights of authors, composers, performers of expression. Copyright is the law that protects the property rights of the creator of an original work in a fixed tangible medium. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/copyright) A fixed tangible medium is something substantial like copying lyrics on paper or putting a song on tape or CD. Copyright can be seen every where in the music industry. Many music artist of our culture today have been involved in copyright issues. Recently, on MTV news it was stated that, "As the music industry becomes increasingly concerned about protecting the integrity of artists copyrights in the age of MP3. Prince has now filed a motion in New York federal court aimed at shutting down several websites offering free downloads of the Artist's songs." (http://www.mtv.com…19990304/prince.jhtml) In addition, in recent music news, "Nine Inch Nails lead man Trent Reznor copyright infringement suit was dismissed. Another artist claimed that the Reznor had stolen material for his last album." (http://www.mtv.com…19991202/nine_inch_nails.jhtml) The copyright law has become an important legal aspect to know our music generation.
This case provides a brief history of management conflict and change at Walt Disney Company. Former CEO Michael Eisner was considered to be controversial because of his abrasive style and tendencies toward micromanagement. It was this style that strained several important relationships to the Disney Company. Though his reign as CEO during the 80’s and 90’s helped advance Disney Company, it was his conflicting management style that led to his demise and the beginning of Robert Iger’s epoch at Disney. Since Iger has taken the helm as CEO Disney was ranked 67th in the Fortune 500 list for largest companies, it has become the largest media conglomerate in the world, and relationships and disputes stemming from Eisner have been reconciled.
Zipes, along with other scholars such as Eleanor Byrne and Martin McQuillan, authors of the book Deconstructing Disney, explore and catalogue the various ways in which Walt Disney-the man-and Disney-the corporation that is his legacy-perpetuate social figurations of race, gender and ethnocentrism through they films they produce. They furthermore critique Disney for reducing fairy tales to over-simplified, over-sanitized and over-sentimentalized banalities designed solely as a profit-generating products. Such analyses prove to be truly important work, as the socio-cultural ideas propagated by Disney, as well as the means by it executed such propagation prove key in unlocking the messages that are sent through seemingly harmless "entertainment". As Zipes keenly point out,
"Innovation is seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody has thought" (Dr. Albert Szent-Györgyi). When dealing with innovation, a company that is well known to most people is Disney. Their marketing strategy is one of the finest around the world when dealing with innovation. Another company that is as innovative as Disney is Pixar. Pixar is known for their unique approach in the work place. Both of these companies have a unique approach towards innovation. They are both similar, however, are exceptionally different. Disney and Pixar are both successful companies that have thrived from their uniqueness and innovative approaches.
Abstract This paper is intended as a primer for copyright law in the form of a short story. An elementary school teacher illegitimately copies a piece of software for educational purposes and is discovered. Issues such as the fair use doctrine, copyright law, and cyberlaw are covered. The analytical section provides a realistic legal defense for the fictional situation that drives the paper.
The man, the dreamer, the artist, the creator, producer, the pioneer, and the developer; Walt Disney accomplished building his own empire along with his legacy that continues to grow every day. Every individual has a story about what drives them to be the person they are today and will be tomorrow. Personally, I love his impressive movies and alluring theme parks. Walt Disney has played an integral part of my family’s life. In fact, my daughter became engaged at the end of Main Street, in a fairy-tale moment in front of the enchanted Cinderella’s Castle, in the Magic Kingdom theme park for her birthday over the holidays. Just about everyone has some knowledge of Walt Disney’s incredible endeavors. However, how many people can say that they have knowledge of the man Disney was before creating Mickey Mouse and what follows?