Forum - View topicIs fandub fair use?
|
|
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ichihashi_Maiden
Posts: 2 |
|
|||
|
I've seen similar questions, but in my case, I'm intending to post 10-30 second clips, compiled together as a demo reel to showcase my potential as a voice actress. I am ONLY using anime that do not currently have an official dub, and intend to include all credits in the video, in the corner of the clips being being used, from the series creator, to the animation company, to the original seiyuu.
Is this something I can legally post on, say, Youtube? Are there certain things I should keep in mind when doing this? |
||||
|
||||
nobahn
 Subscriber Posts: 5146 |
|
|||
|
Please consider sending your question to: answerman(at)animenewsnetwork(dot)com
|
||||
|
||||
yuna49
 Posts: 3804 |
|
|||
|
Please consider consulting an attorney versed in copyright law.
|
||||
|
||||
Night fox
 Posts: 561 Location: Sweden |
|
|||
Answerman's advise is free of charge, but I'm not too sure about the attorney... 
|
||||
|
||||
|
yuna49
Posts: 3804 |
|
|||
Of course, but I doubt Justin would claim that anyone should rely on his opinion when it comes to legal matters. I know quite a bit about copyright law, too, but I'm still an amateur. In this case the person wants to use the material for a commercial purpose to promote her voice-acting career. I have no idea whether that would disqualify her from claiming a "fair use" defense in the face of a take-down notice. |
||||
|
||||
Dessa
 Posts: 4438 |
|
|||
|
Disclaimer: not a lawyer, never taken legal courses
I feel it should be pointed out that a demo reel, by nature, is not the same as a fan dub. A fan dub is made by the fans, for the fans. A demo reel is examples of professional work in the idea of getting one employment. Not the same thing. That being said, I don't know much about the industry, but I wouldn't put it on Youtube. I'd author a DVD (or set up an auto-run .exe on a CD), with a nice-looking menu linking to different clips, with descriptions of what each one is. And physically mail it to prospective employers. I don't know if that's standard in the industry or not, but I definitely wouldn't put it on Youtube if I was looking for professional work. |
||||
|
||||
|
MegaMegane
Posts: 2 |
|
|||
I am in no way whatsoever a lawyer, but this does remind me of a copyright case that I thought was interesting, because it was regarding something by the fans for the fans! In Paramount Pictures Corp. v. Carol Publishing Group, Paramount was suing some authors (who were a couple of Star Trek fans) wrote a book called The Joy of Trek: How to Enhance Your Relations with a STARK TREK Fan. The purpose of the book was to explain the series so that anyone who was in a relationship with a Star Trek fan would be able to discuss aspects of the show with them. The authors discussed the series popularity, provided a description of a typical Trekkie, offered plot summaries and descriptions of the characters among other aspects of the series, and advised about how to relate to a Trekkie. Paramount Pictures sued, because the authors were a using a LOT of subject matter from their property to make this book. Shouldn't they have had a license or something? The authors were like "No, because we created something new from it, it's a fanwork that WE wrote, fair use applies." So this entire case was about what fanworks could be considered fair use! The court applied four factors of the fair use doctrine that were basically developed in other cases in an attempt to make a decision. 1. Court found that while the book contained several sections of non-infringing material, there was 1/3 of the book that did infringe as it essentially told the story of Star Trek, just in a condensed and out of order way. It therefore declared that because of this the book could not be considered “transformative” in it’s nature. 2. The Court declared that since the original work in question, Star Trek, was itself fictional the new piece could not be considered educational. This, in my opinion, is kind of bogus and I DOUBT it would stand in court today because pop culture is becoming so mainstream that understanding it can actually be really beneficial in marketing and business (DBZ Ford commercials, anyone?) 3. The court stated that “…because The Joy of Trek primarily consisted of retelling the plot, using such an amount of the original work to set up the commentary of the secondary work would not fulfill the purpose of the fair use doctrine.” 4. The court thought that since the book could serve as a substitute to the original work it did pose a potential market threat. So after these decisions the court found that the book did not fall under the protection of the fair use doctrine, and the authors had to stop distributing or marketing the book in any way whatsoever. Using the factors, I THINK 1,3, and 4 would stop a fandub from being protected under fair use if this is still considered good case law. Fandubs usually use a lot more than 1/3 of the material, so if the Star Trek book was considered a substantial enough infringement, a fandub should certainly be. If a group uses the video, the music, and the script, the only thing that really changed was the voices, right? I don't think mirroring or anything changes that. Even if they don't use the exact dub script or the music, the creators still may have some sort of hold over the dialogue, even if the translation isn't perfect. Like I said, I think the educational merit of pop culture has skyrocketed recently, so I don't think #2 would apply anymore IF the purpose of a fandub was to be educational. Since it's pretty much meant to entertain though, a court could still hold it against a fandub that it ISN'T educational. 3. Fan "commentary" isn't really present here. It IS a retelling of the original material. 4. Look at the Youtube comments of a lot of fandubs. "This is 10000x better than the official dub, when is episode 8 coming out, you should be paid for this, I like you so much better than [insert official actor]." This COULD be used in court as evidence that it's taking away profits from the official dub, not so sure about subs. The problem I think, is that to fight this you'll have to really dig deep into anime fan culture. Feasibly, you COULD say that some fans will say anything to insult official dub actors because there's an "us vs. them" mentality, while still financially supporting the official release. You could show them some reviews and tell the court that saying that all dubs are bad is something that is popular and fun among fans, but they still would rather buy the show than download a fandub if it exists? The issue is that in fair use is that it looks like you don't have to show specific monetary damages, just the POTENTIAL of a harm to the license holder's market. And I don't think it really paints us in a great light to say that ANY fans turn hating something into a hobby, so it's not an argument I would use. I think that we have to wait a while until more anime fans become judges and lawyers to understand that insulting a product doesn't necessarily mean not buying it in our world. And on the other hand, NOT watching a fandub doesn't mean we won't still pirate the anime. I don't think fandubs actually take money from dubbing companies, but I don't know how to argue against the potential. As for the original studio, that would actually be easier because you may say that anyone who can read subs would rather read them than listen to a fandub. Again though, without a proper understanding of anime fans, a court may not understand how huge our preference for the original Japanese is. So, using only one case as an example, I don't think a fandub is protected under fair use, ESPECIALLY in cases where it already had an official dub. I wish I knew more, so sorry if this doesn't help. Personally, I don't think the anyone's gonna haul you to court over a demo reel, but I've been to a lot of convention panels and if you're looking for paid anime work, directors really like seeing demos that don't come from anime. Maybe some unpopular/uncommonly used monologues or get one made where a professional writes the sections for you! Best of luck. |
||||
|
||||
|
Dessa
Posts: 4438 |
|
|||
|
I wasn't arguing on if a fandub was legal or not. I was just pointing out that making sample dub clips for a demo reel isn't the same thing as a fandub, so asking if fandubs are fair use isn't even the right question.
|
||||
|
||||
|
MegaMegane
Posts: 2 |
|
|||
Oh no, as I had posted, the phrase you used reminded me of the case! I was just giving you credit for reminding me, while trying to answer OP's question, which is "Is fandub fair use?" Still, thank you for the reminder! |
||||
|
||||
ParaChomp
 Posts: 1018 |
|
|||
|
No, you're still selling the product in its entirety without permission. Dubbing might be transformative but the original is still intact where an abridged series chops it up.
|
||||
|
||||
ChibiKangaroo
 Posts: 2941 |
|
|||
|
Fan dubs are generally not fair use. People get away with it because it would likely be difficult for the animation studios to pursue actual cases against them, particularly when the market is so small (or non-existent in some cases). Plus, anime studios don't have the kind of political power that the Recording Industry/Movie Industry have, which means they won't have the same sway with judges.
Anime studios probably know that they can't engage in the kind of high profile cases that the Recording Industry could get away with. The audience isn't big enough. They can't bite the hand that feeds them (i.e. the small but dedicated fan base.) That being said, if you did something with the property that wasn't serving the purpose of a fan dub, but was instead "transforming" it into something else, it might be more of a fair use. The issue with fan dubs is that they can essentially take the place of an official release. If what you are doing is something else entirely, maybe you don't have that issue. Also, yes the amount that you are using does impact things. Obviously a much smaller amount will make it less likely that you'd have a problem. This being said, keep in mind that fair use is an "affirmative defense." That means you are essentially admitting infringing but you are asserting that you have a right to infringe. There's always some risk in that, but the risk tends to correlate to the magnitude of what you are doing. If you are posting your videos to a site with 10 million viewers, its of a different magnitude vs handing it out to a few dozen potential clients. (I.e. be ready for the likelihood of having your videos removed from YouTube.) |
||||
|
||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group