Hitler is mad about copyright protection.

[stevew]

For Hitler's Xbox Live, The War Is Over - Xbox Live - Kotaku

In 2007, Adolf Hitler and Xbox Live helped start an internet meme that started the whole world laughing. Three years on, the distributors of the film the clip is based on have yanked it from YouTube.

The clip, and countless others that have been posted in its wake, took footage from the award-winning 2004 film Downfall (Der Untergang in its native German), to which Constantin Films owns the rights, and changed the subtitles to make it appear Hitler was angry not at his lost war, but at something far more trivial. In this case, how he was banned from Xbox Live.

Deciding enough was enough, Constantin has filed a copyright protection claim with YouTube, and as a result the service's Content ID program has begun removing the videos from the popular online video sharing site.

A shame for those who spent the time constructing the clips, then, but in all honesty the joke had run its course a couple of years ago. Having it scrubbed from the decks of the internet might be for the best (provided, that is, some copies are still floating around for posterity's sake).

You've got to wonder about Constantin's motives in this, though. And the timing. Sure, on the one hand it was a little crass reducing the most powerful moment of such a powerful film to expletive-riddled comedy, but surely it also encouraged millions upon millions of people who otherwise hadn't see the small-scale movie to go check it out?

Man, end of an era.

[SackAttack]

I'd just bought this movie when I found it the other day based almost entirely on my awareness of the movie based on those clips.

If I cared strongly enough, I'd return the movie to protest that move - especially as parody is supposed to be protected under fair use.

[Karlifornia]

These things were warmed over a while ago. Even people I respect and admire were entertained by these things far longer than I was. The first two I saw were funny. After that...dude...get your own idea.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I'd just bought this movie when I found it the other day based almost entirely on my awareness of the movie based on those clips.

If I cared strongly enough, I'd return the movie to protest that move - especially as parody is supposed to be protected under fair use.

Using the exact clip generally isn't protected under parody laws.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Using the exact clip generally isn't protected under parody laws.

Why is it any different if 30,000 people engage in parody versus one person? I'm not aware of any part of copyright law that says parody is only okay if a specific portion of a work is only parodied by a single individual.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Why is it any different if 30,000 people engage in parody versus one person? I'm not aware of any part of copyright law that says parody is only okay if a specific portion of a work is only parodied by a single individual.

I dont get where this argument is coming from.

[chadritt]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Why is it any different if 30,000 people engage in parody versus one person? I'm not aware of any part of copyright law that says parody is only okay if a specific portion of a work is only parodied by a single individual.

huh? The point wasnt about how many people are doing it, the point is that this is NOT parody. Its taking the EXACT clip and simply throwing new text under it, im fairly certain thats copyright infringement.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Like most of these internet memes, I arrived to the party a few years late. I don't think I saw one of these parodies until a few months ago. I forgot exactly what Hitler was mad about in that one.

Also, I never even knew about "Rick Rolling" until a few weeks ago.

I must not be a very creative or adventurous web surfer. Also, the fact that "You Tube" was blocked at work for a long, long time didn't help.

[molson]

I tried to show my girlfriend one of these Hitler things once, but since she speaks German, I think the effect was lost. She's a real downer sometimes.

Downfall is a great movie, by the way.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by chadritt

huh? The point wasnt about how many people are doing it, the point is that this is NOT parody. Its taking the EXACT clip and simply throwing new text under it, im fairly certain thats copyright infringement.

Here's the thing - one of the tests as to whether "fair use" is in play is how much of the copyrighted work has been copied. A three minute clip out of a two hour movie is probably not going to fail that test.

Particularly if the alleged infringers don't have a commercial motive in the creation of those parody clips.

Where the studio would have recourse might be against YouTube or other hosts who profit from advertising sold/viewed alongside the clip, but the clips themselves do not, IMO, cross the line from "fair use" to "infringement."

I mean, again. I'm not a lawyer. I dunno if the guys behind this site are licensed to practice, either, but here's what I found through a fairly quick Google search:

http://www.publaw.com/parody.html

I don't see anything in there that contradicts what I've said.

Greyroofoo - I probably misunderstood what you were suggesting, though "exact clip" has fuck-all to do with it. We're still talking about fair-use protections whether I misunderstood the thrust of your argument or not. If the creators of those clips meet the guidelines for fair use protection as works of parody, there is no infringement.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Matter of time, of course.