Dreaded planet of Notaxia

[tranquility]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IRS

I'm sure many have seen the video that opened the 2011 IRS conference held in Anaheim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHe-zXm17Pc

Supposedly, this and one related to Gilligan's Island were created by the IRS television studio and cost $60,000 to produce. The GI video was said to be an actual training video while this Star Trek one was just, well was just.

I wonder if they got permission for the music and/or the concepts? Copyrights are for the little guys. If the holder(s) of the copyrights were to send one of their nasty letters to the IRS and they got paid, I suspect they would report the income correctly. Just saying.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? IRS

I'm sure many have seen the video that opened the 2011 IRS conference held in Anaheim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHe-zXm17Pc

Supposedly, this and one related to Gilligan's Island were created by the IRS television studio and cost $60,000 to produce. The GI video was said to be an actual training video while this Star Trek one was just, well was just.

I wonder if they got permission for the music and/or the concepts? Copyrights are for the little guys. If the holder(s) of the copyrights were to send one of their nasty letters to the IRS and they got paid, I suspect they would report the income correctly. Just saying.

The IRS claims that the videos are parodies of "Star Trek" and "Gilligan's Island." A parody does fall within the guidelines for fair use of rights-protected material (although it would take a court to ultimately decide if the videos are parodies or not, should unauthorized uses of the material be challenged).

Congressional investigators found that the "Gilligan's Island" video could be viewed as a legitimate training video - the "Star Trek" video, on the other hand, uh, not so much.

I find it ironic that it is Congress rebuking the IRS for wasting tax payers dollars ($60,000). I am certainly glad that is ALL the money that is wasted in Washington. Haha.

 

[tranquility]

The IRS claims that the videos are parodies of "Star Trek" and "Gilligan's Island." A parody does fall within the guidelines for fair use of rights-protected material (although it would take a court to ultimately decide if the videos are parodies or not, should the unauthorized uses of the material be challenged).

Congressional investigators found that the "Gilligan's Island" video could be viewed as a legitimate training video - the "Star Trek" video, on the other hand, uh, not so much.

I find it ironic that it is Congress rebuking the IRS for wasting tax payers dollars ($60,000). I am certainly glad that is ALL the money that is wasted in Washington. Haha.

While I agree it is quite possibly a fair use, I disagree with the theory it is a "parody"--even though that is what the government is calling it.

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (92-1292), 510 U.S. 569 (1994).

The heart of any parodist's claim to quote from existing material is the use of some elements of a prior author's composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author's work.

The Star Trek was not, strictly speaking, a "parody" in that it was not a comment on Star Trek. They merely used it to get attention. As the court referenced a previous decision:

See, e. g., Fisher v. Dees, supra, at 437; MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 F. 2d 180, 185 (CA2 1981). If, on the contrary, the commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh, the claim to fairness in borrowing from another's work diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish), and other factors, like the extent of its commerciality, loom larger.

 

[quincy]

If the IRS decides to go with a parody/fair use defense for any copyright holder's infringement claim, a court would first decide whether the video was a parody or not - determining if the video comments on the original work or whether it is just using the rights-protected material to draw attention to itself - before the court would look at fair use as a defense.

In the Acuff parody case, the U.S. Supreme Court asked whether the new work "adds something new, with a further purpose or different character altering the first with new expression, meaning or message..."

And in an 11th Circuit case over "Gone With the Wind" (see Suntrust Bank v Houghton Mifflin Co., 268 F.2d 1257), the Court ruled that "The Wind Done Gone" was a parody because "its aim is to comment upon or criticize a prior work by appropriating elements of the original in creating a new artistic, as opposed to scholarly or journalistic, work."

Once a court finds that a work is a parody, only then will the court look at the factors for fair use (the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the whole, the effect of the use on the market for the original).

I suspect, based on what you have said of the videos, tranquility, that the IRS would have a difficult time showing their videos are parodies. If not parodies, then I do not see their use of the rights-protected material being found a fair use.

It is entirely possible, I suppose, that licenses were provided the IRS by the rights' holders, for use of both "Star Trek" and "Gilligan's Island" material, for the IRS training (or pseudo-training ) films, so the issue of parody/fair use may not come into play.

I really haven't had much opportunity to review this. A tax video (no matter how it is dressed-up) is not way up there on my list of fun things to do today.

 

[tranquility]

Once a court finds that a work is a parody, only then will the court look at the factors for fair use (the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the whole, the effect of the use on the market for the original).

While true, what is parody can be problematical. For example, in the Wind Done Gone, the court found it a parody because of the specific criticisms of slavery (and the general relationship between the races) shown in Gone With the Wind. However, in the 9th circuit (where the film was shown to the IRS employees) Dr. Seuss Enters., L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997) found the retelling of OJ Simpson's case in Dr. Seuss style was not a mixture of parody and satire as the defendant claimed. The court found the piece to be pure shtick and the defendant's argument completely unconvincing.

You may review the video at some point and find it worth the time as it is not really directed at teaching taxes. (Which is why the Gilligan Island one is one I'd much rather see. It's kinda what I do. It would be great to see how they train the personnel. But, it is not out that I see.) Apparently, the IRS is the only group saving us from anarchy. Aside from that, some of the underlying themes show an interesting mindset.