However, after uploading the final cut to YouTube I was disappointed to find that YouTube had blocked my video in 229 countries due to an automatic check for audio and video copyrighted material. But all hope was not lost! My video was still available for viewing in the following countries:
- Aland Islands
- American Samoa
- Aruba
- Bouvet Island
- Christmas Island
- Cocos Islands
- Guernsey
- Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands
- The Isle of Man
- Jersey
- Norfolk Island
- St. Barthelemy
- St. Martin
- South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
- South Sudan
- Svalbrd and Jan Mayen
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
- United States Virgin Islands
I immediately looked through Youtube's policy to find out exactly how my video had been blocked, who was responsible for the copyright, and to figure out my options in challenging the block. In my search for answers I've learned a ton about how copyright policy operates, and I thought it would be worthwhile to share my thought process behind my actions. In the end I've chosen to challenge YouTube's block on the basis of fair use, but not before editing my video in order to meet the four factors of fair use policy. This is a risky decision, as it could get my video unblocked, but it could also give me a strike against my YouTube account (which continues to be a spot that I use for socializing and publishing content). However, if I'm going to teach my students about plagiarism, and if I am to continue remixing audio and visual material to feed my comedy fandom, I have to fight for my right to fair use.
The Case Against
The case against me is clear. I used the full video of Taylor Dayne's "Tell It to My Heart," only adjusting it by switching out the heads of the backup dancers. Even worse, I used the entire audio, meaning that my video would compete with the original video for views and for publicity. While I don't foresee anyone coming to my page just to listen to the song, by posting the audio in its entirety I clearly am overstepping my right to fair use by using more content than necessary, after all, the joke only needs about a minute or two of the original song. Even after I make my proposed changes, it's going to take some convincing to keep me from falling into the category where I used a disproportionate amount of the copyrighted content for my purposes.
I could have been flagged for using copyrighted video, audio, or both, but I believe it was the audio that raised the red flag, since around seventy percent of the frames of video were edited in some shape or form. Again, this doesn't mean that I wasn't flagged for the copyrighted video content, as only the faces of the backup dancers were changed, but the audio is clearly far beyond the limits and was easily picked up.
The Case For
I've read a ton of legal information and stories from fellow YouTubers about challenging a blocked video, and from their stories, they are unblocked 99% of the time when arguing for fair use. However, I don't think it's as simple as copy/pasting the law into a textbox, and I don't want it to be that simple. Furthermore, as I have already outlined, my video does infringe on two of the four factors of fair use. These factors are:
1. The Transformative Factor
2. The Original Work (Fiction vs. Non-Fiction, Pub'd vs. Unpub'd)
3. The Amount of Content Used
4. The Effect on the Potential Market
These factors were found here, but were substantiated by several other sources. Basically these factors create a flexible law in order to handle the complexities of copyright policy. After seriously considering these factors, I admit that my original video does not pass the test, which is why before I challenge the copyright I'm going to make the following edits:
1. Cut the video into clips
I believe this change substantially increases the chances that I'll be able to post my video on United States digi-space. Instead of using the full three minutes and forty seconds of the music video, I'm going to cut to the best video clips where the backup dancers are featured. This cuts down on the total content used, lessens the effect of my video on the audio or video market, and makes my video more transformative. This change also improves my product, as the lengthy music video can get boring after a while without edited content. This makes for a win/win in terms of my video.
2. Add another disclaimer at the start of the video
I made such a pretty 3D disclaimer at the end of the video, and I want to build a similar shot for the start of the video. Originally I wanted to start straight into the video, since it takes a good twenty seconds before the first hit of the joke, so instead of an opening slide I built a MTV-style opening credits, which was not only fun to do, but also informative. But alas, this move may have been too clever for it's own good, as this style of credits might lead a less savvy viewer to believe that I produced the original video instead of the joke version, which leads right back into the questions on the marketability of the song and putting the fair in fair use.
Disclaimers are little more than a show of good faith. Even a bold disclaimer does not fall directly under the four factors, making my efforts to include one rather trivial. But I believe an opening disclaimer demonstrates an increased transformative quality, as it demonstrates my work in the opening frames of the video instead of twenty-some seconds into the video.
***
The craziest part of this whole thing has been learning about the connection between copyright policy and (wait for it....) comedy, as it seems like copyright policy has been especially lax when applied to comedic works. While in practice this refers less to the breadth and depth of comedic practice than to satire/parody specifically, it's always interesting to see where comedy has any kind of sturdy legal defense. These ideas also intersect nicely with the history of copyright as it refers to stand-up jokes, and the comedians that have been labeled as "joke-thieves."
In the end, looking to comedic practice not only informs the way I look at ethics and public discourse, but also the way I look at textual ownership. Easily, these two themes work together on a broad level, as one of the key redemptive elements of humor is that laughter divests the laugh(ter)er of ownership of his/her body.
***
Now all I need is two hours of access to Premiere/Photoshop to finish off this movie. Here's to hoping Purdue has a computer lab I'll be able to use. Wish me luck.
Cheers. Clink.
Punching Pic found @
http://yesheis.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Why-all-the-hate-600.jpg
Image of Taylor Dayne found @
http://taylordayne3.homestead.com/files/SatisfiedCover.jpg