Fair use or copyright infringement?

[Fantasies_only]

According to the members here, my idea of taking dialog and voice from a video game (Soul Calibur 3 by Namco), and applying it to a text with audio story not directly about the game, can be called a parody and can be used without negative consequences, but the Namco ToS states no media on the official Website can be used for any purpose without authorization of Namco or the owner/s of the media taken (meaning permission by Namco or all voice actors).

I am also toying with the idea of adult interaction, so I may also have defamation of character to deal with (all minors will not act in an adult manner, but will use flirty innuendo).

I will not be the one submitting this story if it ever gets made.

 

[Weird Harold]

According to the members here, my idea of taking dialog and voice from a video game (Soul Calibur 3 by Namco), and applying it to a text with audio story not directly about the game, can be called a parody and can be used without negative consequences, but the Namco ToS states no media on the official Website can be used for any purpose without authorization of Namco or the owner/s of the media taken (meaning permission by Namco or all voice actors).

I am also toying with the idea of adult interaction, so I may also have defamation of character to deal with (all minors will not act in an adult manner, but will use flirty innuendo).

I will not be the one submitting this story if it ever gets made.

In general, if you have any doubts about whether something is permissible, it probably isn't strictly permissible.

Doubts are often the subconscious telling you, "this is a really stupid idea."

 

[Fantasies_only]

In general, if you have any doubts about whether something is permissible, it probably isn't strictly permissible.

Doubts are often the subconscious telling you, "this is a really stupid idea."

Thanks, that's a big help.
Is there someone who knows something about law here?

 

[sr71plt]

First, no copyright owner is going to understate control rights over her/his material. You don't rely on what they claim but on what the law says.

You, indeed, can do a parody on their work. You can't use their physical work to do so (without their permission), though (their actual film/computer images or their actual recording), to create a different impression than their work was striving for, especially in a derogatory manner--and I doubt any court outside of Las Vegas would judge turning something nonsexual into erotica as anything but a derogatory use. Don't expect a U.S. court to bend over backwards to support porn.

SNL can be taken as a example. Their sketches are parody. But if their sketches use film or recording of the original of what they are doing a parody on, they will have paid use rights to the owners of the film/recording copyright to be able to use it.

Jay Leno's show tonight included flashes of photoshots of Hillary Clinton looking mean and threatening. The sketch he did was parody. The photos were rented from the copyright owners or he couldn't have used them on his TV show.

Second, what you describe isn't parody. You may be within the parody limits, but what you describe here doesn't put the use there. From what you describe, you may be using too much of their original script and you are using their original recording.

 

[Fantasies_only]

First, no copyright owner is going to understate control rights over her/his material. You don't rely on what they claim but on what the law says.

You, indeed, can do a parody on their work. You can't use their physical work to do so (without their permission), though (their actual film/computer images or their actual recording), to create a different impression than their work was striving for, especially in a derogatory manner--and I doubt any court outside of Las Vegas would judge turning something nonsexual into erotica as anything but a derogatory use. Don't expect a U.S. court to bend over backwards to support porn.

SNL can be taken as a example. Their sketches are parody. But if their sketches use film or recording of the original of what they are doing a parody on, they will have paid use rights to the owners of the film/recording copyright to be able to use it.

Jay Leno's show tonight included flashes of photoshots of Hillary Clinton looking mean and threatening. The sketch he did was parody. The photos were rented from the copyright owners or he couldn't have used them on his TV show.

Second, what you describe isn't parody. You may be within the parody limits, but what you describe here doesn't put the use there. From what you describe, you may be using too much of their original script and you are using their original recording.

Thanks, I'll take that into consideration.
I did change the concept, but using the original script in a parody (such as the old Jim Belushi Star Trek skits) isn't law breaking if gotten permission.

I wouldn't use hardcore porn like BDSM, cum drinking, etc.

 

[sr71plt]

Thanks, I'll take that into consideration.
I did change the concept, but using the original script in a parody (such as the old Jim Belushi Star Trek skits) isn't law breaking if gotten permission.

I wouldn't use hardcore porn like BDSM, cum drinking, etc.

No, using the original script with permission isn't against the law. Nor did I suggest that it was. If you get permission to do what you want with it, you can do whatever you wanted with it, of course. That's not what you asked.

 

[sr71plt]

By the way, going back to your thread title, Fair Use has nothing to do with any of this. Fair Use is for nonprofit educational purposes only. This Web site is a profit center (whether or not you'd make any money off the story posted here), and a court would laugh you to the door in a claim that it was educational.

 

[Oblimo]

You cannot defame a fictional character.

 

[sr71plt]

You cannot defame a fictional character.

You can if it's trademarked. But, happily neither you nor I am contemplating doing this, so we can be cavalier with the risk, right?

 

[The_Fractal_King]

Fair use as defined by the US supreme court:

"Quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."

More importantly Title 17 Section 107 of the US legal code notes that the amount of content used must be taken into account by the court.

If you're just using a couple sound effects or a couple sentences there's really very little chance of Namco a) caring b) finding out or c) being able to do more than have the story taken down. Nonetheless it's probably best to consult an actual attorney rather than asking for advice on a forum.

 

[sr71plt]

Here's what the U.S. Copyright Office has to say about it (from www.copyright.org). So, you can figure out for yourself what your risks are for any particular use. Note the statement of application of "fair use": "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, schlarship, and research." I think you can figure out where stories on an erotica site fit.

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Revised July 2006

 

[starrkers]

Not sure what he's actually planning, but from looking at his Story Ideas thread, it seems he wants to make a video (?) using the same dialog as the game, ie lifting it from the game, but changing the story around the dialog to erotica.

I don't know, but I think he'd get sued. Using the dialog in parody is one thing, actually lifting the voices is another.

 

[sr71plt]

Not sure what he's actually plannong, but from looking at his Soty Ideas thread, it seems he wan'ts to make a video (?) using the same dialog as the game, ie lifting it from the game, but changing the story around the dialog to erotica.

I don't know, but I think he'd get sued. Using the dialog in parody is one thing, actually lifting the voices is another.

I don't think he'd get sued. I just think he could be successully sued (and so could this Web site if they hosted the story) if the copyright owner found out about it and decided to sue (both pretty remote possibilities).

So, I think the real problem here is not being able to assure anyone (including the Web site owners) that they weren't at high risk if the copyright (or trademark) owner chose to sue.

 

[starrkers]

Well, seeing as he's already contacted the copyright owner once about this concept, I'd say it's likely they'd find out about it; therefore, he'd get sued.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, seeing as he's already contacted the copyright owner once about this concept, I'd say it's likely they'd find out about it; therefore, he'd get sued.

Hmmm. I got the impression that he just looked at a statement they had on their Web site, or something. Yes, once you've contacted a copyright owner directly, you can count on two things: they will assert as much "rights" as they can, and they then are zeroed into what you might do with their material.

 

[Oblimo]

You can if it's trademarked.

To pick a nit, that's "dilution of trademark through tarnishment"

But, happily neither you nor I am contemplating doing this, so we can be cavalier with the risk, right?

Ah, you haven't read the story I posted last year. It's a novel-length "tarnishing" of Jell-O, which, IIRC, has already been diluted via the "household name" defense.

 

[sr71plt]

To pick a nit, that's "dilution of trademark through tarnishment"



Ah, you haven't read the story I posted last year. It's a novel-length "tarnishing" of Jell-O, which, IIRC, has already been diluted via the "household name" defense.

You're right I haven't read that one. But hum a few bars and maybe I can pick up on it.

 

[CharleyH]

According to the members here, my idea of taking dialog and voice from a video game (Soul Calibur 3 by Namco), and applying it to a text with audio story not directly about the game, can be called a parody and can be used without negative consequences, but the Namco ToS states no media on the official Website can be used for any purpose without authorization of Namco or the owner/s of the media taken (meaning permission by Namco or all voice actors).

I am also toying with the idea of adult interaction, so I may also have defamation of character to deal with (all minors will not act in an adult manner, but will use flirty innuendo).

I will not be the one submitting this story if it ever gets made.

Intellectual property is hard to prove, but from what you say? it looks like you are ripping dialogue directly from something and not, as you say parodying it. A no - no. Hate to say it, but you have no leg to stand on.

 

[Fantasies_only]

Not sure what he's actually planning, but from looking at his Story Ideas thread, it seems he wants to make a video (?) using the same dialog as the game, ie lifting it from the game, but changing the story around the dialog to erotica.

I don't know, but I think he'd get sued. Using the dialog in parody is one thing, actually lifting the voices is another.

That was not my intension.
I wanted to wite a text with audio story with voice and dialog from Soul Calibur 3.
Since non displayed VG text cannot be copyrighted but voice can, the obvious thing to do is get voice actors who can sound like the characters.
This girl has the right idea:
Women of Soul Calibur III Mimicry Reel [[fandub]] by rekkaxXxkokoro
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bqESKiSNqo

As the name suggests! Basically this is just me doing the voices of the main women from Soul Calibur along with a few extra. Hehe. You can also consider this a type of voice acting demo reel. Sorry the the sound sucks, but this was just a quick video I did so I didn't care for quality. I was pretty bored so I just grabbed a microphone and a quote list off the net. This was all just for fun, haha. Plus, it's like 3AM for me right now, so I might regret doing this in the morning XD. I love doing the voices of Talim's, Tira's, and a little bit of Seong-Mina's. Tell me which ones you like the best or which ones I matched most closely, ne? Ivy - I love doing British accents! I hope I did this well. Taki - Not too confident about this, but the character's cool nonetheless. Talim - VERY confident on this! I did a small redub on one of her ending movies. I scared my cousin one time on how close I can do this voice, haha. Cassandra - At first I couldn't really do this, but then I thought 'it's just a preppy voice, isn't it?'. Blah. Xianghua - I ~really~ wasn't very sure about this before I did the voice because her voice actress is Wendee Lee, and she is AWESOME! I like the way this came out, either way. Sophitia - Probably the most mature voice out of all the girls. Somehow I mananged. Seong Mi-na - Her voice is great to do! Tira - Especially love doing Tira's voice!! The bipolar stuff is waaay fun to act out! Setsuka - Maybe the second most mature voice. I wasn't sure about this because I also think her VA rawks. Helloooo! Lady from DMC3? Abelia - Pretty good, I guess. I saw this on the quote list I got from GameFaqs and decided 'why not?'. Luna - Hahaha, evil parts are always fun! Amy - ...need I say more? Oh wait, I can't 'cause that's her only line o.o. Jyaane~ ~miki (rekkaxXxkokoro) **March 24, 2008: 1000 views! Arigatou gozaimasu! «

By the way, she means split personality, not bipolar.
Miki's Channel (rekkaxXxkokoro)

 

[sr71plt]

Do let us know if Lit. lets you publish this here. That will help answer future similar questons.