View Single Post
Old 2008.07.28, 08:48 AM   #17
Nimh
Administrator
 
Nimh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,093
Nimh deserves a fucking medal
Default

"Portrait rights" are there to protect one's image from reproduction and resale. But they are simply not enforceable under several scenarios:

1. Parody. I choose to make fun of Ringo by putting her face on Mika Nakashima's body. Have I violated two portrait copyrights? No, I have told a joke. Here in America, we are allowed to parody famous people under free speech laws.

2. Fair use. Using visual art, in limited capacity, to illustrate critical commentary. Look at any textbook on film. See all those frame grabs from DVDs? No studio gave permission for those, and yet they are used, and used legally, under fair use. I know this because I worked in publishing for 10 years. This, I believe, covers our asses COMPLETELY at EMF, because we comment on Ringo, we say what we want about Ringo, and that's not going to stop even if we can't have her little picture here and there.

3. Not-for-profit. This is a tricky area. Copyright law says you can't reproduce something even if it's not for profit. Why the YouTube lawsuit? Because YouTube makes profit from the content. But YouTube, not its users, is the defendent, even though the users did all the reproducing. This brings back Glath's point about paranoid webmasters looking to tear everything down that even hints at copyright infringement. This is what media producers want. They want everyone flocking to THEIR sites, THEIR content, THEIR revenue channels. Then they can control not only the content of the programming, but the content of the CRITICAL COMMENTARY.

We are fans, yes, but we are also critics. We comment. We think. We are independent-minded. We are not extensions of the Shiina Ringo publicity machine. Honestly, if EMI sent us a warning letter, I'd consider it a compliment to our community.
Nimh is offline   Reply With Quote