Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 14311
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6626

Post by Dolly » Wed Apr 10, 2019 2:21 pm

Last updated on April 10, 2019, at 2:06 a.m. ET
Posted on April 9, 2019, at 8:05 p.m. ET

Warner Bros. Shut Down Trump’s 2020 Video For Using The “Dark Knight Rises” Score
After Trump posted the video on Twitter, people quickly began pointing out that the music is from Hans Zimmer's score for the Batman movie.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday posted a video on Twitter that appeared to be part of his 2020 reelection campaign. In less than three hours, it had already amassed over 1 million views, but by late Tuesday night, the video was no longer available.

BuzzFeed News has learned that Warner Bros. Pictures filed a copyright infringement complaint to have the video taken down because it uses part of the score from the studio's 2012 film The Dark Knight Rises.

In a statement Tuesday night, Warner Bros. confirmed it was taking action over the video.

"The use of Warner Bros.’ score from The Dark Knight Rises in the campaign video was unauthorized," a spokesperson said. "We are working through the appropriate legal channels to have it removed.”
...................
The video appears to be lifted from a YouTube video posted to a Reddit thread on /r/The_Donald. The video by MateyProductions cites Zimmer's score, but it's unclear if permission to use it was obtained.

Warner Bros. is a subsidiary of WarnerMedia, which was recently acquired by AT&T after the Justice Department failed in its attempt to block the merger, one of Trump's 2016 campaign promises.

The White House did not respond to BuzzFeed News' request for comment.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ad ... arner-bros

ETA: another
Warner Bros. Reportedly Filing Copyright Claim Over Video Trump Shared With Dark Knight Rises Music
By Caleb EcarmaApr 9th, 2019, 8:57 pm

Warner Bros. is reportedly hitting President Donald Trump with a copyright claim over his unauthorized use of the Dark Knight Rises‘ score in a 2020 campaign video.

While Warner Bros. did not officially comment on the issue, BuzzFeed News reports that a source confirmed the company is taking legal action against the president’s video — which was made by a fan and then shared by Trump or his team. The track in question, “Why Do We Fall,” was written by legendary film score composer Hans Zimmer.
............
Washington Post reporter Philip Bump reported that the clip was originally shared on the pro-Trump r/The_Donald subreddit — a forum the president has taken content from in the past.
<SNIP>
https://www.mediaite.com/trump/warner-b ... ses-music/
Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 1694
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6627

Post by neeneko » Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:47 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:57 pm
The same rules have to apply to everyone who is in the same position, or they're not really rules at all. And if Warner is in the right here, Hulu would be in the right to stop Handmaid Tale protesters and so on. That's not a position that I think is healthy for our society. So, sorry-not-sorry, but Trump's people are right to bitch about this. Full stop.
My point is, that isn't Trump's position. "I do not want this done to me" and "I do not want this done" are not the same thing, and I think it is important to differentiate between them when supporting an individual, esp given the larger context of Trump and the alt-right's stance on free speech as a tool of silencing others. Trump has advocated for stricter rules that give more power to content creators and public figures to remove content that they find objectionable... so yeah, this is just another example of 'this is a great tool, wait, it is being used on us! discrimination against white guys is the worst and only kind of oppression!'

User avatar
Kendra
Posts: 14635
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 7:53 am

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6628

Post by Kendra » Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:02 pm


So, it has now been determined, by 18 people that truly hate President Trump, that there was No Collusion with Russia. In fact, it was an illegal investigation that should never have been allowed to start. I fought back hard against this Phony & Treasonous Hoax!

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10482
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6629

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:11 pm

A question for you Mike. How does this differ from playing "We Are the Champions" at a campaign rally? Didn't they have to stop playing that due to copyright issues?

User avatar
Turtle
Posts: 3196
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 5:27 pm
Occupation: SPACE FORCE COMMANDER

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6630

Post by Turtle » Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:57 pm

Songs are attached to the venue, they can play whatever until it is broadcast. Then, the rules change.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10451
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6631

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:06 pm

Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:11 pm
A question for you Mike. How does this differ from playing "We Are the Champions" at a campaign rally? Didn't they have to stop playing that due to copyright issues?
Great question, and thanks - you're helping me clear up some things in my head that might come up in my oral progression exam in a few weeks.

My understanding* is that most of the campaign rally use issues aren't really copyright issues per se. Usually, the campaign rally will have the benefit of a blanket license from one (or more) of the collection societies. Sometimes the license might be obtained by the campaign, but the venues will generally have blanket licenses, so it's often not necessary for the candidate to obtain one. When musicians/bands object to campaigns using the songs, they usually phrase their objections in copyright terms, but the actual legal cause of action for these cases would be much, much more likely to be one or more of the ways of making a false endorsement case. (Trademark, right of publicity, and so on.)

But even if we assume unlicensed use, the fair use analysis would still be different between campaign rally and this kind of video. The key thing that most courts look for when analyzing fair use defenses is whether the new use was "transformative" - does it add something to the original, change the original, that kind of thing.** The use of music at a campaign rally is a straight use of the music for entertainment purposes - it's basically the in-rally radio station. It's "songs that get the audience in the mood." It's not transformative.

The use of Batman music in the video, at least IMO, has a stronger claim to be transformative. Or transformativeish, anyway, for reasons I'll get to shortly. In the video, the use of the Batman music has, particularly in combination with the rest of the video, been picked as part of an attempt to create something that's a comment on Trump (at least IMO). (I'll set aside my views on things like the quality of the comment, since that's something that we probably don't want courts and the law using as part of the analysis of what's permitted.) So while the music is still being used as a soundtrack, as it was in the original movie, it's being used and disseminated as part of a larger overall work of political commentary.

Use for the purposes of "comment" is one of the uses that should point toward fair use. The issue is that a number of courts have read "comment" as containing an unwritten "on the original" requirement, and hold that uses that don't comment on the original aren't transformative. The 9th Circuit has been the trailblazer in that regard, but there are other circuits that have gone in similar directions in at least some cases. Applying those versions of the test to the use of the Batman music, it wouldn't be considered to be a fair use because it didn't comment on Batman. Similarly, while the use of the Handmaids costumes at the Kavanaguh hearings was a spectacularly good way to comment on where that confirmation is taking our society, it's not a comment on the Handmaid's Tale - so not fair use.

I think - and I expect to have a full draft of a law review article finished on this topic and ready to send for comment by the end of May, if not sooner - that this leads to a spectacularly strange set of circumstances, and one that's bad for our society. The protection of political speech is at the core of the First Amendment, for good reason. Copyright is an exception to the First Amendment - it's the government restricting your right to speech by giving someone else a monopoly right to control certain expressions. Fair use is supposed to be one of the First Amendment accommodations built into copyright to ensure that the restrictions on speech imposed by copyright do not become overly-restrictive. Yet the current interpretation of fair use is such that a commercially created song parody is more protected than political commentary using the same work.


*Music licensing is complex, as there are often many separate copyrights involved in a single song, and it's not my main area, so my understanding could be slightly off.

**It's a lot more complicated, but that should be enough to cover what's needed for this topic.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10451
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6632

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:11 pm

neeneko wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 3:47 pm
Mikedunford wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 1:57 pm
The same rules have to apply to everyone who is in the same position, or they're not really rules at all. And if Warner is in the right here, Hulu would be in the right to stop Handmaid Tale protesters and so on. That's not a position that I think is healthy for our society. So, sorry-not-sorry, but Trump's people are right to bitch about this. Full stop.
My point is, that isn't Trump's position. "I do not want this done to me" and "I do not want this done" are not the same thing, and I think it is important to differentiate between them when supporting an individual, esp given the larger context of Trump and the alt-right's stance on free speech as a tool of silencing others. Trump has advocated for stricter rules that give more power to content creators and public figures to remove content that they find objectionable... so yeah, this is just another example of 'this is a great tool, wait, it is being used on us! discrimination against white guys is the worst and only kind of oppression!'
Oh, FFS. I'm not supporting the individual.

Trump's position, which as far as I can tell is "the use of the Batman music in the video should have been allowed," is, in my view, correct.

That's the extent of my agreement with him or his position.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Dan1100
Posts: 3550
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 3:41 pm

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6633

Post by Dan1100 » Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:18 pm

So, if Trump can use the Batman theme to promote his campaign for free, how is that any different from Ford using the Beatles "Let it be" in a car commercial, or putting "Let it be" on a jukebox in a bar and not paying ASCAP/BMI.

Should Trump be able to take the song of some struggling artist and use it in his videos for free and without permission? You can't mean that?. Or a video or photograph taken by some journalist or even you or me?

It seems like a slippery slope and I don't understand where you think it should stop.
"Devin Nunes is having a cow over this."

-George Takei

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10482
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6634

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:21 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:06 pm
Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:11 pm
A question for you Mike. How does this differ from playing "We Are the Champions" at a campaign rally? Didn't they have to stop playing that due to copyright issues?
Great question, and thanks - you're helping me clear up some things in my head that might come up in my oral progression exam in a few weeks.

My understanding* is that most of the campaign rally use issues aren't really copyright issues per se. Usually, the campaign rally will have the benefit of a blanket license from one (or more) of the collection societies. Sometimes the license might be obtained by the campaign, but the venues will generally have blanket licenses, so it's often not necessary for the candidate to obtain one. When musicians/bands object to campaigns using the songs, they usually phrase their objections in copyright terms, but the actual legal cause of action for these cases would be much, much more likely to be one or more of the ways of making a false endorsement case. (Trademark, right of publicity, and so on.)

But even if we assume unlicensed use, the fair use analysis would still be different between campaign rally and this kind of video. The key thing that most courts look for when analyzing fair use defenses is whether the new use was "transformative" - does it add something to the original, change the original, that kind of thing.** The use of music at a campaign rally is a straight use of the music for entertainment purposes - it's basically the in-rally radio station. It's "songs that get the audience in the mood." It's not transformative.

The use of Batman music in the video, at least IMO, has a stronger claim to be transformative. Or transformativeish, anyway, for reasons I'll get to shortly. In the video, the use of the Batman music has, particularly in combination with the rest of the video, been picked as part of an attempt to create something that's a comment on Trump (at least IMO). (I'll set aside my views on things like the quality of the comment, since that's something that we probably don't want courts and the law using as part of the analysis of what's permitted.) So while the music is still being used as a soundtrack, as it was in the original movie, it's being used and disseminated as part of a larger overall work of political commentary.

Use for the purposes of "comment" is one of the uses that should point toward fair use. The issue is that a number of courts have read "comment" as containing an unwritten "on the original" requirement, and hold that uses that don't comment on the original aren't transformative. The 9th Circuit has been the trailblazer in that regard, but there are other circuits that have gone in similar directions in at least some cases. Applying those versions of the test to the use of the Batman music, it wouldn't be considered to be a fair use because it didn't comment on Batman. Similarly, while the use of the Handmaids costumes at the Kavanaguh hearings was a spectacularly good way to comment on where that confirmation is taking our society, it's not a comment on the Handmaid's Tale - so not fair use.

I think - and I expect to have a full draft of a law review article finished on this topic and ready to send for comment by the end of May, if not sooner - that this leads to a spectacularly strange set of circumstances, and one that's bad for our society. The protection of political speech is at the core of the First Amendment, for good reason. Copyright is an exception to the First Amendment - it's the government restricting your right to speech by giving someone else a monopoly right to control certain expressions. Fair use is supposed to be one of the First Amendment accommodations built into copyright to ensure that the restrictions on speech imposed by copyright do not become overly-restrictive. Yet the current interpretation of fair use is such that a commercially created song parody is more protected than political commentary using the same work.


*Music licensing is complex, as there are often many separate copyrights involved in a single song, and it's not my main area, so my understanding could be slightly off.

**It's a lot more complicated, but that should be enough to cover what's needed for this topic.
Playing Devil's advocate here, because I'm a total copyright fangirl, you could basically cobble together a video collage of political figures and any play list you wanted to and it would be considered fair use? An entrepreneur could make a killing by producing the video and hooking up with spotify or youtube and never have to worry about DMCA again.

And just because I am that much of a geek, you can't copyright clothing, so how does that affect the Handmaid's Tale costumes? (There might be specific elements of the costumes...recognizable emblems or something...that can be copyrighted, but not a red cape and a white hat.)

Any chance I can read the finished article when you get done? Pretty please?

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10451
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6635

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:49 pm

Dan1100 wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:18 pm
So, if Trump can use the Batman theme to promote his campaign for free, how is that any different from Ford using the Beatles "Let it be" in a car commercial, or putting "Let it be" on a jukebox in a bar and not paying ASCAP/BMI.

Should Trump be able to take the song of some struggling artist and use it in his videos for free and without permission? You can't mean that?. Or a video or photograph taken by some journalist or even you or me?

It seems like a slippery slope and I don't understand where you think it should stop.
My understanding (perhaps mistaken) was that the video wasn't produced by the campaign - it was produced by some dude and posted on Reddit, then found and Tweeted by Trump. But in any case...

A few reasons pop to mind.

First, there's already a First Amendment distinction between political and commercial speech, and commercial versus noncommercial use is already part of the fair use analysis - and has been since before the doctrine was codified.

Second, while I didn't explicitly run through all four fair use factors, I also didn't mean to suggest that the remainder should become irrelevant or that there should be a blanket fair use determination for all political speech. In the case of the use of the Batman theme, the use of that specific meme contains a communication - the Trump = Batman link. The borrowing is communicating (at least in part) a specific message that isn't present in the original. That's absent in the scenario with the unknown artist, which would drop the likelihood of fair use quite a bit. (I'm happy to run through the rest of the factors as applied to the Batman taking and cover this in more detail - but it's pushing midnight here, so that will have to be tomorrow, when my brain is fully back on and I already had the day blocked out to work on the project this is related to.)

Third, I'm not sure how I'm arguing for any more of a slippery slope than normal fair use. The only thing I'm arguing for that's different from the approach in wide use right now is for fixing the confusion being caused by the (IMO unworkable) distinction the courts have been trying to draw between parody and satire. That distinction is the only thing, at least in my view, that would push this out of fair use now.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10451
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6636

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:58 pm

Sugar Magnolia wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:21 pm

Playing Devil's advocate here, because I'm a total copyright fangirl, you could basically cobble together a video collage of political figures and any play list you wanted to and it would be considered fair use? An entrepreneur could make a killing by producing the video and hooking up with spotify or youtube and never have to worry about DMCA again.

And just because I am that much of a geek, you can't copyright clothing, so how does that affect the Handmaid's Tale costumes? (There might be specific elements of the costumes...recognizable emblems or something...that can be copyrighted, but not a red cape and a white hat.)

Any chance I can read the finished article when you get done? Pretty please?
The determination of fair use is always (at least as the system currently exists) on a case-by-case basis. So I don't think slapping a random collage together to get around DMCA would work.

As far as the Handmaid's Tale goes, I've actually anticipated that precise argument in the material I've already written. :mrgreen: So I'll just quote it here (with the footnotes omitted):
The question of whether the costumes worn by characters depicted in dramatic productions are protected by copyright can be complex, particularly at a time when this area of law is being reevaluated in light of recent developments. However, the question of whether there is a copyright in a particular costume is also largely irrelevant to cosplay, particularly in the context of political speech. The red cloak and white bonnet worn by the Kavanaugh protestors does not in and of itself provide an image of a dystopian and misogynistic future; that message is conveyed by the relationship between current events with the features of the characters associated with those costumes. Similarly, the notion that Google is a monopoly is not conveyed by the the top hat, monocle, and moustache, but by the Rich Uncle Pennybags character. Thus, the potentially infringed work when cosplay is used in the context of political speech is not the costume; it is the character.

The precise copyright status of costumes might occasionally be unclear; the copyright status of characters is anything but. Characters are, and have long been, considered to be independent works which receive copyright protection independently of the works in which they appear. Courts will generally find that any sufficiently delineated character is a work in which copyright subsists. Thus, the depiction of copyright-protected characters by the protestors is sufficient to state a prima facie case for copyright infringement.

Moreover, the use of an entire character may not be necessary to support a finding of infringement. As Ochoa noted, there has been at least one appellate case in which the primary finding of infringement was based not on the taking of a character, or even the taking of an entire costume, but on the repeated appearance of a characteristic hat within the allegedly infringing work.
I'll be posting the full draft on my SSRN when it's ready to submit to journals, so you'll be able to read it by that point at the absolute latest. If you send me your email address, I'll try my best to remember to send you the early draft that I'll be emailing around for comments.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10451
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6637

Post by Mikedunford » Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:14 pm

Foggy, any chance you might be able to find the time to pull the political speech and fair use stuff to a separate thread? I tricked myself into thinking it wouldn't threadjack things much when I decided not to start a new thread, and I think that was a mistake.

Sorry, and thanks.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

Mr. Gneiss
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6638

Post by Mr. Gneiss » Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:54 pm

After reading all this Mike, I'm confused as to how someone/anyone can take the music of another and get away with using it because the music is magically folded into something called "political speech". I don't see how that is possible, but I'm a JAG (Just a Geologist), not an attorney.

User avatar
Foggy
Posts: 28909
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:00 pm
Location: Fogbow HQ
Occupation: Dick Tater

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6639

Post by Foggy » Wed Apr 10, 2019 8:08 pm

Mikedunford wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:14 pm
Foggy, any chance you might be able to find the time to pull the political speech and fair use stuff to a separate thread? I tricked myself into thinking it wouldn't threadjack things much when I decided not to start a new thread, and I think that was a mistake.

Sorry, and thanks.
I may get to it mañana ...
I put the 'fun' in dysfunctional.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10451
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6640

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Apr 11, 2019 6:52 am

Mr. Gneiss wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:54 pm
After reading all this Mike, I'm confused as to how someone/anyone can take the music of another and get away with using it because the music is magically folded into something called "political speech". I don't see how that is possible, but I'm a JAG (Just a Geologist), not an attorney.
Sure. So, again, the key about the political speech isn't (just) that it's political, it's that political speech falls (or should fall) into the broad basket of things that are considered to be fair use. Here's the full statute covering fair use:
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
There's a lot in there. I'm going to go bottom to top, since I think that makes the most sense under the circumstances.

Let's start with the last bit - "the fact that a work is unpublished." That doesn't apply here, since the Batman soundtrack is published. It's also not a factor for any of the type of political uses of works that I'm concerned with, because the nature of the borrowed work asa work of popular culture is an important part of why it's being used in the first place. (I'll get to that in a bit.)

Next, let's look at the 4th Factor - the effect on the potential market or value of the original. The main thing that this factor examines is the extent to which the original substitutes for the original work, either directly or because it's the kind of use that would be licensed. The case for this being a direct market substitute is (IMO) fairly weak. The whole (or at least most of) the track is used in the video, but it's one track, it's used in a different context, the music isn't (as far as I can tell) advertised in such a way that the video would be likely to come up in a search if someone was looking for the music, and even if you're looking to pirate that track there are many easier ways to find it.

Substitution for a licensed use is a bit trickier, because it's possible that but there's something a bit counterintuitive that can come into play here - uses of a type that rights holders might be unwilling to license (such as parody) generally favor fair use. I'm not aware of any case that explicitly places political uses into that category, but that's because it looks like the issue has yet to arise rather than because courts have refused. And I think such a determination would be justifiable - I've got quotes somewhere from a couple of different major content providers to the effect that they'd rather not license political uses because they want to stay away from that whole area. That doesn't strike me as all that different from the idea that parodies generally aren't licensed because nobody wants to license things that make fun of them - and that's a justification that courts have adopted.

So for this video, I think the fourth factor is neutral at worst, and plausibly favors fair use.

Third factor is the substantiality of the use - how much of the original was taken. This isn't measured in absolute terms, but in comparison to what was needed for the purpose of the new work. In some cases, a taking of a relatively small percentage of a book has been found to be unfair. In others, use of the entire original has been found to be fair. The analysis is a bit tricky here. The whole track (more or less) was used, but it was also the amount needed to score a 2-minute video. I'd go with neutral, but it could tip either way.

The second factor is the nature of the original work. Original works that are largely factual favor fair use. Creative works such as the song in this case tend to theoretically disfavor fair use, at least technically, but the courts have basically dispensed with this favor - finding that because the creative nature of the work is a key part of the reason for using it in a new work, the factor should carry very little weight. So this factor goes against fair use, but holds very little weight.

This takes us to the first factor, which is the key one - nature of the new use. There are two things that get looked at here - the list of uses at the start of the statute, and whether the new use is transformative. For me, the key word in the preface is "comment." What I'm arguing is that the use of popular culture references in political discussion is (or at least should be) considered to be a form of commentary, which would push this toward fair use. The test for transformativeness should also push toward fair use, since that looks at the extent to which the new use alters the original by adding new meaning, expression, or message.

So if my argument holds, this use would be fair use not simply because it's a political use, but because the political use pushes the first factor toward fair use, the second is against but holds virtually no weight, and the others are probably no worse than neutral.

The problem is that in cases like this, where the new use is commenting on something other than the original, the current caselaw on the first factor is all over the place to such an extent that calling it "incoherent" is a generous assessment. There are courts that have held that a more well-known artist's use of a lesser-known artists photographs in (commercial) appropriation art is fair use in part because it was social commentary even though it wasn't a comment on the original work, but the same court has also held that an unauthorized Catcher in the Rye sequel that incorporated Salinger as a character and attempted to depict Holden's relationship with his author was not fair use because although it commented on Salinger it didn't (in the court's view) comment on Catcher.

My argument (in the paper I'm writing) is (1) that this incoherent doctrine needs to be resolved; and (2) because political speech is favored under the First Amendment and fair use is supposed to be how we incorporate First Amendment principles into copyright law, the doctrine should be resolved in a way that use of a work in political speech weighs in favor of a finding of fair use. (Not that it should be determinitive, but that it should push the first factor in that direction.)
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Sugar Magnolia
Posts: 10482
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 6:44 am

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6641

Post by Sugar Magnolia » Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:38 am

So is there a generally understood definition of "political speech" or is it just a case of if it's used in conjunction with a campaign or politician it's political speech? It seems to me that there should be a little something extra required in addition to just using it in a political context.

I'm having trouble explaining what I mean but that seems awfully simple for it to be a constitutional question without a lot of ifs, ands or buts attached to it.

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10451
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6642

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Apr 11, 2019 11:50 am

To be honest, I'm not sure there's a clear definition for any kind of speech, political or otherwise. Mostly, people (and courts) seem to go with the classic Potter Stewart "I know it when I see it" test. (That was first applied in the context of obscenity.)

I'm probably explaining myself poorly (possibly the consequence of trying to distill a not-yet-finished paper that's already at 6500 words into a few posts), but I don't think the main issue is a constitutional one, or at least not directly.

It's that the fair use doctrine is supposed to be one of the ways that we maintain the First Amendment's balance between lack of government interference in speech and expression with copyright's government-enforced monopoly over certain speech and expression. Yet, at least right now, a commercially produced and distributed parody of a song is more protected under fair use than the non-commercial use of a song in a political video assembled by some dude on Reddit and distributed for free. That's almost the direct opposite of what's expected under a pure First Amendment analysis, which strikes me as a bit concerning. (Particularly since it puts big mass media in the position to have an outsized say in what pop culture references can be used to communicate various things.) It gets even more concerning (for me) that the decisions about what is and isn't parody for fair use purposes are currently being made based on the artistic judgment of judges.
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Danraft
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:45 pm

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6643

Post by Danraft » Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:00 pm

I think the "Handmaid Tale" analogy is bogus.
Disney characters were created by Disney for Disney's use as the essence of their image.
The movie adaptation is just that.
But, the Music created for that movie was a unique creation . The Music, original song, written and performed by, has a tradition that one doesn't have to reach back to Campbell's soup for.

If the work of an artist is used at a political rally without their permission, it gets pulled.
If the "Handmaids Tale" logo got used at a protest, yes, that the same.

Not a costume evoking the image of, that is more like "sampling" in rap.
The Mercury Project

User avatar
Danraft
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 8:45 pm

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6644

Post by Danraft » Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:06 pm

And... Yes. This may deserve its own thread.
Trump's tweets are hitting a new level of "inciting" , admitting obstruction, and sheer insanity. The pedantic discussion of case law is worthy of discussion...somewhere.
The Mercury Project

User avatar
Mikedunford
Posts: 10451
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:42 pm

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6645

Post by Mikedunford » Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:18 pm

Campbell doesn't always refer to soup. </pedant>
"I don't give a fuck whether we're peers or not."
--Lord Thomas Henry Bingham to Boris Johnson, on being asked whether he would miss being in "the best club in London" if the Law Lords moved from Parliament to a Supreme Court.

User avatar
Dolly
Posts: 14311
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6646

Post by Dolly » Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:30 pm

Trump tweets graphic inaccurately putting approval in Georgetown poll at 55 percent

President Trump on Thursday morning tweeted a photo of a Fox Business graphic that inaccurately claimed a recent Georgetown poll put his approval rating at 55 percent.“Great news!” the president tweeted with the accompanying photo of the graphic, titled “Trump's Soaring Approval,” that aired Wednesday on Fox Business' “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”

The graphic was crafted from the results of a poll from Georgetown University's Institute of Politics and Public Service. That poll actually depicted Trump’s favorable rating at 43 percent, not the 55 percent shown in the graphic.

The president's unfavorable rating was 55 percent.Mo Elleithee, director of the Institute of Politics and Public Service, took to Twitter to correct the graphic shortly after Trump’s tweet Thursday. <see his tweet below>
<SNIP>
https://thehill.com/homenews/438423-tru ... poll-at-55

Donald J. Trump ✔
@realDonaldTrump
Great news! #MAGA

<grrr I am having trouble posting the image>

4:20 AM - Apr 11, 2019


Mo Elleithee ✔
@MoElleithee
I’m the Director of @GUPolitics & this graphic is incorrect.

The Battleground Poll shows 58% approval on the economy.

But it shows only 43% overall approval, & 52% disapproval.

The 55% number is the President’s unfavorable rating. (Only 40% favorable.)http://politics.georgetown.edu/full-questionnaire/
5:00 AM - Apr 11, 2019
Avatar by Tal Peleg Art of Makeup https://www.facebook.com/TalPelegMakeUp

User avatar
neonzx
Posts: 6426
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6647

Post by neonzx » Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:43 pm

I thought that 55% looked like a wild outlier but I didn't have time to check it this morning. I guess Fox and Trump didn't either. :smoking:
To which Trump replied, Fuck the law. I don't give a fuck about the law. I want my fucking money.

User avatar
much ado
Posts: 1848
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:56 am
Location: The Left Coast

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6648

Post by much ado » Thu Apr 11, 2019 12:53 pm

Fake news!

User avatar
bob
Posts: 27207
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6649

Post by bob » Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:10 pm


:think:
Imagex6 Imagex2 Imagex4 Imagex2

User avatar
RTH10260
Posts: 22355
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Near the Swiss Alps

Re: Trump - POTUS Tweets and Social Media

#6650

Post by RTH10260 » Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:28 pm

bob wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 2:10 pm
https:// twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1116172224459882496
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Too bad that the European Union is being so tough on the United Kingdom and Brexit. The E.U. is likewise a brutal trading partner with the United States, which will change. Sometimes in life you have to let people breathe before it all comes back to bite you!

04:52 - 11 Apr 2019
:think:
yup - the GOP has let Teh Donald breathe too long. :twisted:

Post Reply

Return to “Trump Administration”