|
Post by daeglan on Sept 8, 2012 11:09:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Sept 9, 2012 14:35:03 GMT -8
I noticed under the "what are you going to do with the money" section, that there's no mention of "licensing" or "legal defense fund."
|
|
|
Post by daeglan on Sept 10, 2012 0:39:28 GMT -8
why would there need to be either?
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Sept 10, 2012 4:39:05 GMT -8
Since the DMCA, parody/fair use is a questionable defense at best.
I presume the song sounds a lot like the original, so it's likely it'll get a take down notice as soon as it's published.
Unless she actually got permission from Lady Gaga (or whoever actually owns the rights).
|
|
|
Post by Kainguru on Sept 10, 2012 9:55:29 GMT -8
Yeah I'm surprised she hasn't already been sent a cease and desist letter . . . That sort of IP is guarded more jealously than a Vestal Virgins . . . Well . . . Virginity
|
|
|
Post by inflatus on Sept 10, 2012 14:13:27 GMT -8
I am also surprised to see it is still up. I am sure it will go down soon.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Sept 10, 2012 16:10:02 GMT -8
Well, her latest comment says this:
"Just got a very interesting email…..more on this later should something come of it."
Maybe that's the C&D? But it was posted four days ago and there's no update since then, so maybe not.
OTOH, she's apparently been performing the parody at various public events, and she even had promotional postcards printed...maybe she does have permission?
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Sept 10, 2012 19:50:54 GMT -8
I won't say she *doesn't* have permission, but I doubt it. Gaga's signed to a subsidiary of Universal. No doubt they have some say in this, and that's the company that sent a takedown notice to a guy who posted a video of his toddler dancing to one of their songs for 30 seconds or so.
But who knows.
|
|
|
Post by kaitoujuliet on Sept 11, 2012 10:36:40 GMT -8
Well, I was curious, so I actually left her a comment asking if she had permission. My comment is private, but her response is public (it's in the comments tab on her page): "It’s parody, which is protected by law."
So it sounds like she is in fact counting on fair use. What are the new restrictions on that, anyway? I don't think I've heard about this.
|
|
|
Post by inflatus on Sept 11, 2012 11:11:40 GMT -8
Parody? I wonder how long that will last. I am beginning to get curious about some of this legal talk. It will be interesting to see how this type of Kickstarter will affect others over time.
|
|
|
Post by Stu Venable on Sept 11, 2012 11:58:36 GMT -8
Disclaimer: My information on this is several years old, as I don't need to keep up on it any more. I spent an hour with a copyright attorney back when I sold a song to Levi Strauss, and I bent his ear considerably in that time.
My recollection of the conversation:
When the DMCA became law, much of the legal precedent regarding fair use was thrown out the window -- new law = new legal interpretations = new legal opinions and rulings.
We won't really know what's covered by fair use and what isn't until there's been enough litigation for lawyers to get a good sense on how the DMCA is being interpreted.
Because of the very high fines for being found guilty of copyright violation (don't remember exactly, but it's tens of thousands of dollars per instance of violation), people were very reluctant to let cases go to court, because the cost of losing would be catastrophic.
She's right, parody is one of several defenses under fair use. Important word here: defense, as in a legal defense, as in you make that argument in a court room, with a judge and jury and $200-per-hour lawyers.
I don't know what case law has happened since I was seriously following this stuff, so maybe fair use under the DMCA HAS been more precisely defined. Who knows.
But before I went into such an endeavor, I would spend a couple hundred on a copyright attorney and get a real legal opinion from someone who's paid to follow this stuff.
Who knows: maybe she's already done so.
IF she posts it on Youtube, there's a chance that their auto copyright violation detection software will catch it. Then she'll get a take down notice which will include details for how costly it is to get caught violating someone's copyright.
I've received this notice twice (once from a copyright scammer and once from a contract company working w/ CD Baby, who auto detected my own song, "Plan B."). In both cases, they very explicitly tell you the risks of appealing the take down notice, which is your one free warning before things get expensive.
|
|