Sign In

Frank your Majesty

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
Last activity

Post History

Dealing with People Selling Fan Projects

This is a very favorable interpretation. Here’s another take:

It’s not a re-mix, it’s a re-creation. Any differences to the actual theatrical cut are small, and they are unintentional. It’s not putting anything in a new context. Just because there is no home video release of the OUT does (sadly) not mean it’s not protected by copyright. The educational part of this project could be achieved by showing a selected few scenes.

Copyright law as a whole should be changed so that copyright holders also have the responsibility to preserve their work for future generations. It’s not worth going to court over some stupid ebay sells and risk to shut the whole fan-edit scene down.

ZigZig said:

Thank you, Frank Your Majesty!
As “fair use” is defined as “the use of LIMITED AMOUNTS of copyrighted material”, I am not even sure that it can be invoked here, even though it is only broadcast in a family circle: it is not a “limited amount” of copyright material, but an entire work.

Fair use can be recognized even when only one of the four criteria is met (from the wiki article: “However, courts have occasionally found use of an entire work to be fair use”). And if you show your edits only to your family, the strongest point in favor of fair use is that you don’t interfer with any hypothetical sales. No company is going to sue you if they don’t think they are losing any money because of you. And no court will spend time discussing such a case.

This post has been edited.

Dealing with People Selling Fan Projects

I’m not a lawyer but I have access to google and wikipedia.

From Wikipedia:

Exclusive rights

There are six basic rights protected by copyright. The owner of copyright has the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

  1. To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
  2. To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
  3. To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
  4. To publicly perform the work, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
  5. To publicly display the work, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work.
  6. To digitally transmit sound recordings by means of digital audio transmission.

A violation of any of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder is a copyright infringement, unless fair use (or a similar affirmative defense) applies.

Fair use

Fair use is the use of limited amounts of copyrighted material in such a way as to not be an infringement. It is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107, and states that “the fair use of a copyrighted work … is not an infringement of copyright.” The section lists four factors that must be assessed to determine whether a particular use is fair. There are no bright-line rules regarding fair use and each determination is made on an individualized case-by-case basis.

  1. Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are more likely to be fair use. This does not mean that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair use or that all commercial uses are not fair. Instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.
  2. Nature of the copyrighted work: Using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair.
  3. Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole: Courts look at both the quantity and quality of the copyrighted material that was used. Using a large portion of the copyrighted work is less likely to be fair use. However, courts have occasionally found use of an entire work to be fair use, and in other contexts, using even a small amount of a copyrighted work was determined not to be fair use because the selection was an important part—or the “heart”—of the work.
  4. Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work: Here, courts review whether, and to what extent, the unlicensed use harms the existing or future market for the copyright owner’s original work. In assessing this factor, courts consider whether the use is hurting the current market for the original work (for example, by displacing sales of the original) and/or whether the use could cause substantial harm if it were to become widespread.

In addition to these four factors, the statute also allows courts to consider any other factors that may be relevant to the fair use analysis. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on the specific facts of that case. There is no formula to ensure that a predetermined percentage or amount of a work—or specific number of words, lines, pages, copies—may be used without permission.

The justification of the fair use doctrine turns primarily on whether, and to what extent, the challenged use is transformative. “The use must be productive and must employ the quoted matter in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original. A quotation of copyrighted material that merely repackages or republishes the original is unlikely to pass the test… If, on the other hand, the secondary use adds value to the original–if the quoted matter is used as raw material, transformed in the creation of new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings-- this is the very type of activity that the fair use doctrine intends to protect for the enrichment of society.”

Making a fan-edit interferes with point 2 of “exclusive rights”, however, if you made this fan-edit for yourself and you watch it only with your family, you’d have a very strong case that this is covered by “fair use” as you’re not interfering with anyones business. (See point 4 of fair use.)
This doesn’t hold up anymore when you share your edit with thousands of people. Besides the altered scenes, a fan-edit also consists of many scenes found in the original work, which interferes with point 3 of “fair use” and distributing your fan-edit therefore violates point 3 of “exclusive rights”, as you’re also providing the unaltered scenes to the public. (Obvisouly, you’re always interfering with point 2 of “fair use”.)
You could make the claim that your edit is transformative (see point 1 under “fair use”) and has additional value over the original work, but if this argument was easily accepted in court, we would’nt have to have this discussion right now. Fan-preservations can by definition not be transformative, as their goal is precisely not to change a work of art, so no luck in that departement.
The only thing this community has left is point 1 under “fair use”, which is “non-commercial use”, but that alone isn’t enough in court. And this is the only difference to the people selling fan-edits on ebay. And in the eyes of the law, this difference is minuscule. Drawing the attention of authorities to these sellers also means drawing their attention to the creators of fan-edits.

nickyd47 said:

Harmy isn’t publicly distributing his projects himself. Thus he isn’t responsible for the objective breach in copyright because someone else posted his work. Get it?

But Harmy is publicly distributing his project himself. He posts about it and he (indirectly) tells people how to get it. And at one point the files had to go from his computer to some file hosting service. Do you really think any judge would accept “well, someone broke into my computer and stole the files whenever I finished a new version of the movie, but I have never contacted the police about it.” as an excuse?

This post has been edited.

Star Wars Vs.

LordZerome1080 said:

I got the whole tutaminus thing from Jensari 1 on Youtube. Nevertheless, Vader could just absorb it using his lightsaber or could continuously disrupt Sidous’s concentration by using telekinesis thusly preventing him from using force lightning.

But can’t Vader use ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA to block Sidious’s Kamehameha‽

Kennedy worse than Lucas.

yotsuya said:

(I put ANH lower because it uses more varied styles that don’t fit as well with the saga as a whole while TESB, TPM, and ROTJ are more thematically unified)

I completely disagree. For me, Star Wars has the perfect score, every piece is unique and memorable. From Empire onward, there are a few outstanding pieces, while most of the music just blends in and isn’t nearly as prominent as in Star Wars.

Kennedy worse than Lucas.

How is “solid but maybe slightly unoriginal new movies and no OOT” worse than “bad new movies or no new movies at all and still no OOT”?


SilverWook said:

Some other sites have a “shoutbox”, which is similar to IRC in look and feel, but no way to know who’s actually there unless they say something.

So, basically the Random Thoughts Thread?

Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo

Warbler said:

true, but it happens sometimes in society (Germany 1930s and the South of the USA) that ideas from the Nazis/KKK are more popular then the ideas of MLK. In order to make sure MLK’s freedom of Speech is protected in such an era, we protect the Nazis/KKK(unless they become violent and/or break the law).

You seem to think that the Nazis would respect your freedom of speech as much as you respect theirs. Was MLK’s freedom of speech protected in 1940s Germany? No, they abolished freedom of speech as soon as they could.

4K restoration on Star Wars

If 4K becomes a movie enthusiast niche format, then a new scan of the SE might not be a compelling selling point.

Harmy ESB error??? V2.0
  1. Asking in the corresponding project thread might expose your question to the people most qualified to answer it.
  2. If you have to start a separate thread, at least do it in the right subforum.
  3. ESB Despecialized comes with many audio tracks. You might want to specify which of them has this problem.
If you need to B*tch about something <strong>other than</strong>... This is the place

yhwx said:

Frank your Majesty said:

Lord Haseo said:



I can only shrug at the shrugging thing not rendering properly.

The backslash is used to indicate that the following symbol, which is otherwise used for formatting, should to be displayed. For example sigh vs. *sigh*

For this reason, a single backslash is not displayed and you have to use two consecutive backslashes.


EDIT: for some reason, you have to use three backslashes.


Two backslashes escapes the first backslash but not the underscore. Three escape the backslash and the underscore.

Ahh, I didn’t realize that the underscore is doing the same as the asterisk.

To the top