Laci Green Threatens False DMCA For Fair Use (CONFIRMED)

[lordhathor]

Enjoy.

Also, don't forget to check out my "Debating With Myself: Christianity" playlist. ^_^
Contains videos like "VenomFangX: Fraudster Exposed", "Creationist Backlash", and "Why we care if VenomFangX steals from sick children".

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E69AA67F274B937B

 

[ImprobableJoe]

That didn't look like "fair use" to me.

 

[JRChadwick]

What a pathetic tart!

 

[lordhathor]

That didn't look like "fair use" to me.

When I talk about fair use in the video, there's an annotation. Pause the video to read section 107 of US copyright law (the section relating to fair use) and some recent court decisions setting precedence. It's definitely fair use.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

When I talk about fair use in the video, there's an annotation. Pause the video to read section 107 of US copyright law (the section relating to fair use) and some recent court decisions setting precedence. It's definitely fair use.

I don't see it that way. Granted, she might very well lose, but I don't think it is accurate to describe this as a "false" DMCA claim. Do you see the distinction?

 

[Aught3]

Dang this is a shame.

She is a little bit silly though, making videos accentuating her lips, eyes, neck line, and breasts then being upset when she attracts creeps to her channel.

After watching some of her videos she does say she was a mormon (lol just got a spell correction as 'moron') so perhaps a little bit sheltered? Another harm caused by religion.

 

[lordhathor]

I don't see it that way. Granted, she might very well lose, but I don't think it is accurate to describe this as a "false" DMCA claim. Do you see the distinction?

I'm not sure that I do. I may have missed a little bit of your point, but there have been very specific precedence set by judges in the recent past, to the tune of the following - Applicable precedence highlighted in red:

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."

If not both, then at least one of those applies, wouldn't you say?

(US copyright law, sec. 107 - "Fair Use": http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html )

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Neither of those things seem to apply in this case.

 

[irmerk]

I am just still surprised she, and other bimbos like her, try and create a profile identifying her with her cleavage involved. I mean, just like you said in the video, she goes out of her way to cut off part of her head from the video just to get all of her cleavage in. I am personified by my face, and I think most people feel the same way; does she think she is personified by her breasts?

 

[irmerk]

Neither of those things seem to apply in this case.

I think the video consisted of a parody of an excerpt of the video being parodied... How does that not apply to this case?

 

[lordhathor]

I think the video consisted of a parody of an excerpt of the video being parodied... How does that not apply to this case?

my point exactly. it's a parody of her video wherein the point is to point out her whoreyness

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I think the video consisted of a parody of an excerpt of the video being parodied... How does that not apply to this case?

It didn't seem like "parody" at all, from where I'm sitting. It was boobs and music, and I don't see how that counts... unless you really don't care because she's a "bimbo" and that's what really counts.

 

[irmerk]

The point of the video was to parody the entire involvement and focus on her breasts. It pointed out that she diverts attention from whatever she is saying because she is focusing so much attention on her cleavage. It drowns the validity and message of her video. So, it is actually a really good parody.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

The point of the video was to parody the entire involvement and focus on her breasts. It pointed out that she diverts attention from whatever she is saying because she is focusing so much attention on her cleavage. It drowns the validity and message of her video. So, it is actually a really good parody.

I don't agree... which may be nothing more than a difference of artistic opinion.

However, from a legal standpoint I don't think it would fly. For instance, if you took a clip out of a movie where an actress gets naked, zoom in on her boobs, and play random music over it, do you think a judge would call that fair use if you called the actress a bimbo who gets by on her looks?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

As a for instance, if we were to record our "it's a parody", "no it isn't!" conversation over Monty Python's "Argument Clinic" sketch, that would count as fair use. If you just replaced the sound with random music, and zoomed in on their ties, I don't think that would count.

 

[lordhathor]

It didn't seem like "parody" at all, from where I'm sitting. It was boobs and music, and I don't see how that counts... unless you really don't care because she's a "bimbo" and that's what really counts.

Parody:
1. A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See synonyms at caricature.
2. The genre of literature comprising such works.
2. Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.
3. Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Wow, I guess you're going to say "checkmate!" next, and think you've made your point? :lol:

 

[lordhathor]

Wow, I guess you're going to say "checkmate!" next, and think you've made your point? :lol:

I don't see how quoting the definition of parody in a discussion where said definition is called into question as it relates to the topic of fair use is comparable to yelling "checkmate!" and claiming victory.
:| :?

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't see how quoting the definition of parody in a discussion where said definition is called into question as it relates to the topic of fair use is comparable to yelling "checkmate!" and claiming victory.
:| :?

You seem to think I don't understand the law or the meaning of common words. I understand both at least as well as you do. I understand everything you have to say. I just don't agree with your conclusion. Quoting the dictionary at me doesn't change the fact that I think your interpretation is 100% off-base.

And, you can't avoid what appears to be a fair use violation by just declaring something to be a parody. It actually has to BE a parody... and that video doesn't qualify. There are other videos on YouTube that mock Laci Green pretty hard, show lots of her boobs, and ARE parody, because they actually make some sort of comment. Zooming in on boobs with no comment? Not a parody, not fair use.

 

[lordhathor]

You seem to think I don't understand the law or the meaning of common words. I understand both at least as well as you do. I understand everything you have to say. I just don't agree with your conclusion. Quoting the dictionary at me doesn't change the fact that I think your interpretation is 100% off-base.

And, you can't avoid what appears to be a fair use violation by just declaring something to be a parody. It actually has to BE a parody... and that video doesn't qualify. There are other videos on YouTube that mock Laci Green pretty hard, show lots of her boobs, and ARE parody, because they actually make some sort of comment. Zooming in on boobs with no comment? Not a parody, not fair use.

The reason I quoted the dictionary was in order to inform you that this definition of fair use (that is, the definition of parody, which is fair use) was not "my definition". It is not up for debate, nor is it a matter of opinion. It is a word with a set meaning, and that meaning is listed above, which clearly includes his video. The definition of parody doesn't imply that he must include some sort of verbal commentary, or otherwise. You are the one who seems to be imposing your own definitions and personal opinion of the word parody onto the situation, which again, is the reason I quoted the definition. You seemed to be confused.

Finally, even if you could make a case for this not being covered under fair use as a parody, which I don't believe that you can, this would still apply: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment" - now, obviously "comment" isn't the purpose, but "illustration" is. Since he obviously meant for this video to be critical of her style, I don't see how one could make a case that this situation doesn't apply, even IF one could make a case for the 'parody' situation not applying, which again, I haven't seen.