I found one that is down , when he finds out Michael Jackson is dead.
Loved it. Yep. I’m a cornball, because I am not tired of these yet. I’ve seen a couple that weren’t funny, but they usually deliver.
In this last one, though, I think it would have been funnier if Hitler had been angry at the stupidity of taking them down, instead of vice versa.
And Grammar Nazi remains my favorite one.
Sorry to double post, but I found one with the reverse perspective, and I think it is way funnier! Get it while it’s still up!
Which is a damn shame considering it’s one of the best films of the past decade.
And I actually rented the movie because of the parodies. Therefore, I agree.
I also did not know the movie until I saw the parodies, I got it from Netflix.
It seems that “fair use” to justify anything on YouTube has become the new legal buzzword akin to “That’s unconstitutional!” indicating that something is merely unfair. People seem to tack the term “fair use” on anything that they want to excuse from copyright violation. I don’t think any court would define five consecutive minutes as fair use, but I would love to see something like this go to court to end this internet debate once and for all.
I don’t want to come off here as the guy who shits in the the punch bowl. After all, I LOVE those clips (my favorite Hitler is the Sandra Bullock/Jesse James one), and I think the Thundercats fake trailer should earn the creator a deal in Hollywood.
However, I have no doubt that the copyright owner would prevail in US Courts in this case, and feel that is only fair. Five minutes of TOTAL footage would be pushing it in my estimation. But five minutes of CONSECUTIVE footage? And not as a newsworthy review, but to create a new form of entertainment? No way that holds water. This is pretty much what copyright laws were created to prevent.
As for the argument that these clips draw attention to the film, I’ll leave that up to the film company to decide. This film, which I had heard of but also now want to see because of the brilliant acting of Bruno Ganz, took a lot of heat when it was made. Critics said it was humanizing Hitler. It probably ticks them off to see it turned into a comedy when they defended that it should ever be made in the first place. At least we enjoyed the ride.
In summary, I’m an IP supporter who loves people who violate IP laws for my amusement. (Essentially, I am a hypocritical douche…)
Yeah, I think a case could be made in defense of these clips, but it’s not a clear case of fair use. The courts are more likely to rule in favor of works that use copyrighted material for the purpose of criticism or education rather than sheer entertainment, and just being funny isn’t enough to make a work qualify as a protected parody.
In Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music, the Supreme Court ruled that 2 Live Crew’s “Pretty Woman” qualified as a parody of the original Roy Orbison song because it “reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original or criticizing it, to some degree”. A clip of Hitler ranting about Jesse James might be considered a parody of celebrity-obsessed media, but it isn’t really a parody of Downfall because it isn’t making any kind of statement about that movie. Parodying something other than Downfall isn’t much of a defense when the copyrighted material is taken entirely from Downfall.
I’m not saying it’s impossible that a court would find the Hitler rant videos to be within the realm of fair use, but I wouldn’t consider it at all a sure thing. And if I’d made one of those videos, I wouldn’t want to take my chances in court over something I’d put together just for a laugh.
Yeah, do we have any lawyers in the house who can comment on whether this falls under “fair use”? I don’t get all the comments saying it is obviously fair use. I’ve recently been involved in clearing some quotes from song lyrics for use in a book, and it seems that “fair use” is a far more strictly defined concept than I would have guessed, and this doesn’t look anything like it to me. But I’d be interested in hearing from anyone who can clarify.
Hare are government guidelines regarding fair use:
I actually did want to see Downfall when it came out, but I’d only heard a blurb about it. Months pass, and I remember wanting to see 'some Hitler movie" but I couldn’t find the name of the movie, or when it was made or anything. I think the first Hitler parody I saw was when he got banned from xbox live. My favorite is the Grammar Secret Police. Anyway, so I found the flick and watched it, when I otherwise never would have found it if not for the mockery. It’s a wonderful movie, I loved it.
Don’t see Inglorious Basterds after seeing it though. It will make that shitty Tarantino movie even shittier by comparison.
“Don’t worry, he’ll realize the irony soon.” Ha! I love that line.
When I worked in a copy shop, the “front counter layers” (customers) were very explicit: “fair use” is anything they want to do with someone else’s copyright. Their own material is so sacred it must be shredded rather than recycled so nobody can pick it out of the trash and use it. Crystal clear.
This was a constant source of tension, since US code says the person making the copies is actually liable under law, even if he’s an employee of a major corporation who’s been ordered to make the copies.
“Front counter layers”?
Actually, at the time of release it was fairly big news internationally due to their previously having been quite the taboo regarding portraying Hitler in German films, especially as being more human.
An example from the BBC in 2004:
And the original BBC review from 2005:
The 2004 link is interesting as it states that the film will be shown “throughout continental Europe and Japan” but that they still hadn’t secured a distributer for the UK or UK. That seems to suggest that the film would have been fairly more well known throughout the non-English speaking world if ti not for the parodies, where dubbed and subtitled films are a lot more common and accepted.
The length isn’t so much the issue as that they’re getting the acting talents and directorial talents for free. Like you said, if they were using it to mock the movie itself then turn-about is fair play. But if they’re simply using the extremity of the drama for their own purpose, rather than trying to create something themselves, then that’s just being too cheap to hire some actors to film some sort of random excessive drama for themselves.
But would you really be that insulted if the number of people who actually chose to rent the entire film out of curiousity based on the clips spiked dramatically? I’m sure the money in your bank account would act as salve to that injury.
As with other things, size DOES matter. Amount of the work copied is an essential part of the four element test of fair use.
I agree with your other points, though.
Hillary’s Downfall is still up.
That one may be my favorite.
“The voters have stolen my nomination.”