MPAA Adds New Rating To Warn Audiences Of Films Not Based On Existing Works; The Onion, 10/20/15

The Onion; MPAA Adds New Rating To Warn Audiences Of Films Not Based On Existing Works:

"“We recognize how distressing it can be when viewers go into a film and suddenly find themselves confronted with jarring scenes containing a protagonist they’ve never encountered before, which is precisely why we created this rating,” said Joan Graves, head of the MPAA’s ratings board, who said the new category was added in part due to the thousands of complaints the organization has received from moviegoers who were upset they weren’t given advance notice that they’d have to make sense of the scenarios unfolding onscreen. “It’s important that today’s movie fans are aware upon entering the theater that none of what they will see has been adapted from a well-known comic book, television series, novel, video game, historical event, previous movie, or theme park ride.”

“Ultimately, it will be up to the consumer’s discretion as to whether a film is suitable for themselves and their family, but the O rating will explicitly caution people that they will have to pay attention during the movie and follow the storyline on their own,” Graves added.

Though sources said films requiring the new rating are comparatively rare, a spate of high-profile movies over the past several years that do not stem from any previously existing source material—including The Kids Are All Right, Her, WALL-E, Birdman, and Nebraska, among others—have left many viewers angered and perplexed. Citing test audiences they have observed, MPAA officials said that many moviegoers spent the entirety of such films in a state of distress, waiting for the moment when the Incredible Hulk, Katniss Everdeen, Wolverine, or another recognizable character from an established franchise would appear onscreen and clarify the meaning and direction of the film."

Arianna Huffington hits back at Washington Post veteran; (London) Guardian, 9/24/10

James Robinson, (London) Guardian; Arianna Huffington hits back at Washington Post veteran: HuffPo founder accuses Leonard Downie Jr, who branded aggregators as 'parasites', of 'pointing fingers and calling names':

"Huffington responded: "People like Downie continue to confuse aggregation with wholesale misappropriation, which violates copyright law."

She said that although her site does feature news from other providers, "aggregation goes along with a tremendous amount of original content, including original reporting and over 300 original blogposts a day".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/sep/24/huffington-post-washington-post

Remixing Is Creating And Original -- It's Not Just Derivative Copying, TechDirt.com , 3/27/09

Via TechDirt.com: Remixing Is Creating And Original -- It's Not Just Derivative Copying:

"At the beginning of the month we were one of the first to write about the amazing Thru-You "album" created by a DJ named Kutiman, who took individual sounds off of YouTube and mixed them into a full album. I've always been a believer in the concept that remixing something is a creative endeavor in its own right, but I'd never seen the point driven home quite as clearly as in this album...

The idea that what he's done is almost certainly illegal and copyright infringement (he seems incredulous at the idea) should be a clear indication that something is wrong with the current copyright regime."

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090327/1611474282.shtml

As Rights Clash on YouTube, Some Music Vanishes, The New York Times, 3/23/09

The New York Times: As Rights Clash on YouTube, Some Music Vanishes:

"In early December, Juliet Weybret, a high school sophomore and aspiring rock star from Lodi, Calif., recorded a video of herself playing the piano and singing “Winter Wonderland,” and she posted it on YouTube.

Weeks later, she received an e-mail message from YouTube: her video was being removed “as a result of a third-party notification by the Warner Music Group,” which owns the copyright to the Christmas carol.

The law provides a four-point test for the fair use of copyrighted works, taking into account things like the purpose, the size of an excerpt and the effect the use might have on the commercial value of the actual work...

The body of law is ever-evolving, and each era and technology seems to force new interpretations. In the 1960s, for example, the Zapruder film, the home movie that captured the Kennedy assassination, was bought and copyrighted by Time magazine. But a judge denied that it could be a copyrighted work because of its value to the public interest.

Many of the offending videos of the user-generated variety like Ms. Weybret’s — as opposed to copies of music videos produced by Warner and its artists — would fall under fair use, according to Mr. von Lohmann, because they are noncommercial and include original material produced by the user.

Others, including Warner Music’s lawyers, might argue that the videos, while themselves created for noncommercial purposes, are nevertheless being shown on YouTube, which is a moneymaking enterprise."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/business/media/23warner.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=youtube&st=cse

MySpace ad deal lets members use copyright video - BusinessWeek, 10/2/08

Via BusinessWeek.com: MySpace ad deal lets members use copyright video:

"Instead of trying to take down all copyright-protected videos that its members post, MySpace will let certain clips stay -- and give the creators of the original content a cut of the revenue from advertising that will be attached to the snippets."

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D94773G80.htm