Is a sex tape fair use?

he result is an immense repository – an archive of almost anything that has ever been recorded.” To me this begs the question, what else is there to talk about?  And if you do decide to risk it and create a scholarly webtext, you had better be original.  Because if what you have to say is too bland, too long, too outdated, too ANYTHING, you’ll lose your readers.

n our day and age, the basic idea of how we create content in our minds is so conditioned by media that we are in a position unlike any other culture in human history: Today, this interior rhythm of words, this inside conversation, expresses itself in a way that can be changed once it enters the “real” world.”  I think this speaks to that while a scholarly online work must have a sense of credibility and restraint, there are relatively more options as how to convey your meaning.  Scholars are no longer bound by white paper and black ink; margins that can only be so wide and a header which must contain A, B, and C.  Now there is the opportunity to really get behind what you’re thinking through tasteful flash, website design, and subtle font choices.

The other can of worms that this video (and what it represents) so deftly pries open, is what it means to be creative anymore.  It is an idea that Paul Miller (DJ Spooky to many) refers to in his essay Loops of Perception.  The idea that nothing new is created, just “remixed”; adapted to exist in a new time and age.  To use my previous example of The Thief and the Cobbler and Aladdin: first, there was an oral tradition in the Middle East, and one of the stories was of the poor tailor’s son “Alāʼ ad-Dīn” which was Anglicized to Aladdin.  Eventually, new media caught up to the spoken folk tale and it was written down to be included in the book A Thousand and One Nights.  After this it continually shifted forms.  Soon, we get The Thief and the Cobbler, which, granted has made some significant changes but any one can see that its foundations are in the original story.  We have some cross pollination of animators and suddenly you have some very similar characters to be found in the hit Disney film,  Aladdin.  Great, so we have a rip off, of a rip off, of a rip off.  Where is this going?  Well, now, on YouTube you get things like this. So who owns it?  The creator fingolfin897? Disney?  Mirimax?  The poor goat herder a thousand years ago who came up with a tale to entertain his grandkids?  Rather hard to decide isn’t it.

Also, I mentioned previously that there are some very distinct similarities between The Lion King and a less well known Japanese film, Kimba the White Lion…hey isn’t the main character in The Lion King named Kimba?  Oh wait, no…it’s Simba!  Silly me…they don’t sound anything alike!  Any way, this website has done a fantastic job breaking down the similarities between these two films.  Definitely an enlightening read.

Just so everyone is on the same page, The Thief and the Cobbler began production in 1964…but wasn’t released until 1995 after changing directors, distributes, and animators numerous times.  Aladdin on the other hand was pitched in 1988 and was released in 1992.  So.  Cobbler first idea, Aladdin first released.  Ok.  Moving on.

Aladdin bares a remarkable resemblance to the movie The Thief and the Cobbler.  In fact several of the animators for Aladdin also worked on The Thief and the Cobbler.  While the plots are not carbon copy, they are similar enough to draw notice.

First, One can draw direct parallels between characters.

Character	The Thief and the Cobbler	Aladdin
The Princess: Independent, headstrong,motherless, both have songs on a circular balconysimilar outfits. She is desired by the vizier and he schemes to marry her.  Although she desires to beindependent, she ultimately requires rescue.
The Protagonist: a poor young orphan boy, falls in love at first sight with the princess on a chance sighting. Closest to the comic relief out of all the characters. Jailed by the vizier, but eventually escapes.
The Comic Relief: Liberal, and frequent use of anachronisms. Both break the fourth wall and maintain a running commentary that other characters ignore. Even some of the lines are nearly identical (both mimic a flight attendant and reference keeping hands and feet in the ride at all times).
The Vizier: Lusts after the princess, hypnotized the sultan. Both have a talking, wisecracking pet bird who eventually abandons its master. Tall and thin with a sinister goatee, both have flowing robes and curling shoes. They also carry a staff that is more than it appears. Their treachery is integral to the take-over plot.
The Sultan: Bumbling, well-meaning but ineffectual. Absent-minded, both are gullible and susceptible to the machinations of the vizier. They are easily entertained and bear the most physical resemblance out of any of the characters.		\
The Palace Guards: Are fat, bumbling, dirty. They are completely useless when it comes to actually doing their job (unless it advances the plot). Both groups are stupid to the point of illiteracy.

• Both feature star crossed lovers: a poor boy who falls in love with a motherless princess who is desired by the evil vizier.
• The girl’s father, the sultan, in both movies is a small, rotund man with a flowing beard.  He is gullible, and easily hypnotized by the vizier.
• The princess in both films has a nanny or a guard.  In Thief it is an actual “nanny” while in Aladdin Raja the tiger is an appropriate stand in.
• The palace guards are clumsy, stupid, and incompetent (not to mention ugly!)
• The vizier keeps a talking bird as a pet in both films.
• In both films the vizier conspires to keep the poor boy away from the princess by throwing him in the dungeon to rot.
• Both are set in the Middle East and feature a takeover plot by the vizier.
• Both viziers use magic to forward their plot.

While there is an undeniable similarity between these two films, it is worth noting that they are both rip offs of a much, much older story from Arabian Nights.  Not to mention, several animators worked on both projects.  Just further proof that there isn’t anything original anymore?

First I think it is important to dwell a minute on the fact that he used a video at all.  Because this is an academic pursuit he easily could have written a paper for a journal, an article for a magazine, or any matter of “old” media.  If he had pursued an approach more in line with “new” media, he could have created a pod cast or a blog.  All of these things–while getting the message out, are dry, boring, and in this new Google age, probably wouldn’t have gotten read or listened to.

Instead he created a video–an entertaining video.  So I feel the next thing to consider is the way he produced it.  Instead of a dry video lecture, he strung together snippets of Disney films.  Each Disney character says one or two words–sometimes an entire phrase, but never much more than that.  The resulting video, while choppy and in places difficult to understand, is indeed entertaining and keeps the viewer engaged for all 10+ minutes.  I doubt few people would have taken ten minutes to read an article on Fair Use.  I can barely sit still long enough to read the Wikipedia entry on Fair Use let alone a dry academic article.

So, to recap, we have a tech savvy professor creating an entertaining video about Fair Use.  Great.  So what?  Is the rhetorical Act that he created this video at all?  Or that he posted it on a site known for creating viral video phenomenon?  Or that he used extremely well known characters from a major corporation known for “borrowing” ideas?  Well–it’s all of these things.  He created the video with the intention to educate his students, but why pass up an opportunity to educate millions instead of hundreds?  By making such an entertaining vehicle for a lesson on Fair Use he almost had to put it up on YouTube, a site known for removing content due to copyright violations, big and small.  The fact that he uses this video to poke fun at Disney is merely icing on the cake.  Disney is well known for savagely protecting their recycled work and continuing the illusion of innovation in their films.

But the Act is also what the video in and of itself represents.  Faden has created a piece that effectively questions what it means to copyright material.  Or, if not what it means, then certainly the (supposed) benefits to copyrighting.  And there are benefits.  If you produce an original work, you should receive recognition and payment for the use of your creativity. But at what point is it no longer original?  Should all pieces of a work be considered “original” even if they have been so tweaked and retooled as to barely resemble their original content?  It is a continuous battle between the copyright and the copyleft.  For now, I think I will stick to the copymiddle.

–Copyright issues are plaguing media outlets as more and more sites count on citizen journalists.  Those journalists who do get paid need a way to be paid for their stuff

–Illegal music downloading has become extremely popular, mostly because it doesn’t make sense to buy a CD any more.  I think there is a bigger issue here though.  Through digitization of music, the advent of itunes, and the rise of the indie band, I think more people are becoming exposed to more music.  When you had to carry multiple objects to listen to your music, you are going to naturally limit your selection.   But now you can carry thousands of songs on one device.  This opens up a world of possibilities.  But–start doing the math.  If you buy a new ipod which holds 40,000 songs and you pay $.99 a song…well…it certainly ads up.  If I paid for all of my music I would have, to date, spent $3,820 on songs.

–With youtube becoming so popular, where do we draw the line between fair use and copyrighted material?  I don’t think all those people who did their own interpretations of “Single Ladies” paid Beyonce Knowles for the rights to that song.  But should the prosecuted for violating copyright?  Of course not.

–Where do fairuse and copyleft come into play?  Should more things be available to the public?  Some one is producing the material–shouldn’t they get paid for their work?

Things Cent mille milliards de poèmes reminded me of:

-Madlibs

-Run Lola Run