In Comment to Wayward Winchester’s Video “The Dark Side Of Supernatural Fandom”
Direct quote from my comment on his video.
“(Hey please read this comment because I think it might help with the whole copyright argument!!!!)
(Link To follow along in the Tech Law Journal In it’s entirety. https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 )
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
So I think you might be getting copyright confused with plagiarism. “Plagiarism is an offense to the author of a work while copyright violations are an offense to the copyright holder. Avoiding plagiarism is about properly apportioned intellectual credit, while copyright is about maintaining revenue streams.”
For instance I’m about to cite where I found this information I quoted (University Library, Copyright VS Plagiarism, researchguides.uic.edu) see how that works?
But let’s discuss the claims made about copyright mentioned in the video in question. (Excuse the change in tone, I actually studied Media Ethics And Law in college) https://www.youtube.com/intl/en-GB/yt/about/copyright/fair-use/?noapp=1#yt-copyright-four-factors. If you follow this link it will take you directly to YouTubes explanation of “Fair Use” with out all the techno law terminology. Which I’m sure you are already familiar with since you call attention to it in your video description, particularly section 107 of the Tech Law Journal.
Section 107 mentions using material that is under copyright for uses in “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.” However if you read the next sentence it gets a wee bit muddy. It then goes on to list requirements that need to be listed on the posting of the content to be considered “fair use”.
“(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The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.”
So that is exactly what section 107 of the Tech Law Journal states. Next I would like to visit the section above this, section 106, which 107 through 120 is stated to be subject to. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works. I’ll highlight the points that are relevant to this subject for the sake of time”
“Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.” What this means is that the owner of the copyright has the right to police how individuals use their material.”
In relation to using copyrighted content for “Compilations and derivative works” as in altering the content and putting your water mark on it essentially claiming as your own work. Section 103 of the Tech Law Journal details this, which in turn bring us full circle back to section 106 as mentioned previously.
Then since we’re pointing all this out let’s go to the fact that none of the comments in this video are cited properly. Section 106a “Rights of certain authors to attribute and integrity” which is also subject to 107 as well as 106! It goes on about not using the name of another author on a piece of work or visual art he or she did not create along with the limitations on the “destruction or mutilation” of another authors work.
Now discussing plagiarism in relation because it goes hand in hand with copyright, an example would be quoting someone’s words from the internet, printed article or an interview (screenshots of Twitter, texts and Instagram posts) without acknowledging the author(s). Failing to credit and properly cite someone else’s thoughts or ideas when paraphrasing.
And for someone so concerned with another author using a meme they supposedly created and the ethics that should be involving plagiarism, you don’t seem to care to much about other authors concerns in regard to your own use of their content. Assuming that you did indeed copyright this particular video, which legally would not stop anyone from creating similar content, I would point out section 113 which discusses the requirements for removing the content that was used without permission. Which “section 106 shall apply”
“(A) the owner has made a diligent, good faith attempt without success to notify the author of the owner’s intended action affecting the work of visual art, or
(B) the owner did provide such notice in writing and the person so notified failed, within 90 days after receiving such notice, either to remove the work or to pay for its removal.”
Oh and you also can’t quote another person for any reason (especially to “SLANDER” them) unless you cite them in their entirety, meaning giving the source of the original quote so that viewers can fact check, and can be certain you aren’t simply using the best and only words to your advantage.
Probably my personal favorite quote that people love to use when discussing these types of matters is “it’s a free country”. I’m not even going to delve into the political part about how that statement is inaccurate in the most infuriating way possible instead focusing on the governmental definition. The first amendment states. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
So really this means that Americans have the right to protest the government without the government shutting them down. This doesn’t mean we all have the right to say what ever we want about anything whenever the time suits us. The first amendment does not permit anyone to “incite actions that would harm others. (e.g. “[S]houting Fire in a crowded theater”] Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). So even though the words that haven’t physically injured another person (to yours or my knowledge) it isn’t freedom of speech, it’s actually harassment, which someone could potentially take you to court for if serious enough.
So let’s think about this; I personally didn’t have much of an opinion on this matter until I watched the video justifying everything that’s happened. I progressively got more and more infuriated while watching. I cringed at all the finger pointing and mud slinging. It breaks me that this fandom is going through this extremely emotional and wrenching time together (which I desperately hoped would bring us all closer together) instead we are at each other’s throats. If ever there was a time that we seriously needed to stand together, it would be now. After the 15th season we are going to be the ones keeping this fandom/family alive, and that’s going to be next to impossible if we can’t stand as a united front. I refuse to let this beautiful entity that is Supernatural fade into obscurity.
I honestly love this family no matter how much we bicker, y’all are honestly one of the most important things in my life, but honestly guys, this is kind of f*cked up.
There is never a good enough reason to disrespect another human being, much less our own family. But honestly if y’all have a problem with another person, come to them with facts not feelings. If they choose to listen then awesome! You worked a problem out in a healthy productive manner and chances are you both feel good about the outcome (ideally). If not, then sh*t at least you tried. But honestly if someone came at you with insults and anger and hate are you going to be likely to listen to what they have to say? I know I sure as h*ll wouldn’t want to.
I doubt anyone is going to read all this but I sure hope so. I’ve been brushing up on the Tech Law Journal for the last 3 or so hours to make this point. But even if no one does, just know that I love you all and please don’t forget to “Always Keep Fighting” luvs! (Jared Padalecki)
P.S. Sorry/not sorry for the essay.”
