Having spent the last week bending over backwards to be fair to all sides, it came as second nature for me to post this.
And I'm sure that in return he'll be more than happy to run our rebuttals to his broadcasts.
The thoughts and observations of the leaders of The Animation Guild (TAG), Local 839 IATSE. Jason MacLeod is the Business Representative, KC Johnson is the President. Mike Sauer is Assistant to the Business Representative.
This weblog reflects their individual personal opinions and does not necessarily represent the official position of the Animation Guild.
This blog is updated weekly. If the most recent posts have not appeared, hit the Refresh button.
Let us know if you're an Animation Guild member with a blog
Posts
27 comments:
He's looking into the funding of this gentleman, and he knows Disney hated unions. That's an excellent rebuttal.
"We'll find out if it's been federally funded."
The government's out to get you, Glenn Beck! The communist socialist totalitarian rulers are everywhere!
LOL! Seeing as how the bush "administration" and the gNOp presided over the largest expansion of government in U.S. History, and gave us the largest tax hike in U.S. History, it's a little LATE for him to be complaining now.
But what can you expect from a high school drop out alcholoic?
"Fair use", oh brother. Basically it means the guy behind the Duck thing thinks it's okay to use other people's property any way he chooses, and the property owners have no say in the matter. It's that kind of "fair use" that allows pornographic images of Fairly Odd Parents characters and other children's properties to be posted at places like Deviant Art for all the world to see. It's a shame that creators of such properties apparently have no recourse against such "fair use". It's not the same as South Park parodying some cultural icon or other. It's theft and abuse of someone's creation. And it's a damn shame it's allowed to go on.
As for Mr. Beck, I like him. I like his message, as do millions of others. He's articulate, he's funny, he acknowledges when he makes mistakes, and he's inspirational to many. He's an antidote to leftist nuts like Reverend Wright. If there is political money behind the Duck cartoon, I hope he finds it out. For my part, I think it's just another silly leftist attack. And I think it's strangely appropriate that the leftist philosophy seems best expressed within the context of a cartoon. ;)
Fair use is a guideline and not a right. Here are the guidelines for what determines fair use from infringement via the U.S. copyright office:
"(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
Clearly guideline 3 is severely violated as the remixed Donald Duck piece is all ripoff!
I'm no fan of Glenn Beck, but I must say I agree with Mr. Anonymous #2 in what should and should not constitute "fair use". When I watched this Donald Duck political satire the other day, as entertaining and clever as I thought the editing was, it did bother me that by simply cobbling together existing Disney animation clips, the resulting film struck me as being artistic grave robbing. Had I been one of the animators involved in creating the original cartoon shorts, I'd have been incensed that they were being cannibalized and repackaged to suit somebody's personal political agenda, whether or not it reflected my own political leanings.
In contrast, I must admit I have no problem with the satire on Disney's "Pinocchio" that ran the other day on Cartoon Brew, as that was clearly a newly animated parody (deliberately crudely animated in Flash for clear contrast with the lush Disney visuals) , more akin to the type of printed parodies of pop culture that I associate with MAD Magazine. In that respect, I would tend to consider the Pinocchio satire to be "fair use", whereas the Donald Duck propaganda film utilizing actual Disney footage seems like blatant copyright infringement.
"As for Mr. Beck...He's articulate, he's funny, he acknowledges when he makes mistakes, and he's inspirational to many."
That statement is funnier than anything Disney, WB or anyone else has ever produced as a cartoon.
I take no political stance here. Both Reverend Wright and Mr. Beck are cartoon characters. Both funnier than anything Warners Bros. ever did.
"We'll find out if it's been federally funded."
Uhhh-huh. "Federally funded YouTube mashups".
...We don't use the Internet very much, DO we, Glenn?
I love how Beck spends all his time attacking the creator and comments NOTHING about the subject and context of the creation.
Beck is a joke, a rabble-rouser and an alarmist. This isnt propaganda, its what everyone (except for his dumb followers) think about Beck.
"His dumb followers" are gonna kick the @ss of the current administration in a few weeks time...
Had I been one of the animators involved in creating the original cartoon shorts, I'd have been incensed that they were being cannibalized and repackaged...
Having known a few of the animators from the era of these original shorts, my guess is that not only would they not be incensed, but they'd be laughing their asses off, and happy to see their work put to good use.
"His dumb followers" are gonna kick the @ss of the current administration in a few weeks time..."
Since you're obviously one of his dumb followers it's not worth putting too much stock in your wild-eyed predictions (whether they're LDS tinged or not), but if you're possibly right then you and his other dumb followers will be the ones to suffer the most....kind of ironic isn't it...?
I dont know....there has been so much new damage done recently on top of old damage. Its pretty evident people are pissed, they were mad already and now they have lost their patience because its the same old thing, if not worse in some ways.
The brands change but the life long blood suckers stay the same. I will take my chances on new faces that haven't been bought or corrupted by decades of being the elite from the beltway. Get these multi term disasters in congress, and all the other leeches out of there.
They use the people as pawns and both sides are guilty of playing the people right into it. Clean slate is needed.
I agree with Pete. It's one thing to CREATE a parody using your own art, as Mad Magazine and South Park do. But to take other people's art out of context and twist it to express an agenda is abuse as far as I'm concerned.
As far as humor and politics go, if you like the Donald Duck/Glenn Beck video, tune into Rush Limbaugh sometime. He's got a roster of songs parodying leftist politicians that'll have you on the floor laughing your guts out (my favorite so far is his parody of Barney Frank entitled "Banking Queen", sung to the tune of ABBA's "Dancing Queen". Pure comedy gold).
"he's an idiot, and he's wrong on so many things, and distorts the thruth like a pretzel."
Really? I've heard these arguments over and over. Could you be specific? Like, examples? If you're going to call the guy out, call the guy out. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just so you know my tone, but I want evidence, not just ranting about someone being a racist, a bigot or what have you.
Details, please.
Anon above.
Becks favourite method of distortion is linking two things he hates together then sort of recants it as just a guess. This then sets an idea in motion in peoples impressionable minds. For example:
"The anon above me could be a nazi, he also could be paid off by Beck himself for sticking up for him on this blog. In fact how do we know he isn't being funded by Beck? There is no evidence to support that he isn't being funded, so therefore it's a likely scenario. We don't know either way, but it is completely possible."
So now when people read what I just wrote, they can't help but let even the tiniest part of their brain consider, even if it's for a fraction of a moment, the possibility that you are a nazi that is being funded by Beck himself. Even though it's highly unlikely to be true.
I started watching him recently to check it out for myself and his love of country was very different than what his competitors had him labeled as.
"As for Mr. Beck...He's articulate, he's funny, he acknowledges when he makes mistakes, and he's inspirational to man"
Many Germans said the same thing about Hitler. The closest thing to the evil, racist, anti Constitution, ignorant beck spouts.
Guidelines guy: what you quoted isn't the "guidelines" for fair use, it's "factors to be considered". It's not worded as a guideline. Here's a supreme court ruling:
...the inquiry focuses on whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or whether and to what extent it is "transformative," altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message. The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use.
This is a matter for lawyers and judges to resolve, and I have a feeling they'd rule in favor of fair use.
If you guys ever watch The Daily Show, Stewart easily disembowels Beck (and Fox news) every single episode. Its fantastic to watch.
Oh, and about the Banking Queen song. You call that comedy? Thats loud, obnoxious, and right up there with the worst elementary school humor. Seriously? You think thats funny?
In my opinion, Republican vs Democrat debates usually just distract everyone while corporations continue to take over.
^Yeah, I think the "Banking Queen" song is funny. It's as loud, obnoxious and juvenile as Barney Frank himself. And a hell of a lot funnier than that hack Stewart's ever managed to be. He has a tiny, tiny tiny audience compared to Beck's and O'Reilly's. But I suppose that, to the elite, ratings success merely means that most people are idiots who just don't get Stewart's brilliance. :P
And as for Stewart's audience, it's a fact - and kinda scary - that many of his viewers actually believe they're watching a journalist, and get most of their news from his show. Talk about idiots...
beg to differ. When we watch Stewart, we know it's commedy. But then how can we know if the Glenn Beck/Limbaugh audiences really think that what they are hearing is the thruth?
"Faux News" anyone?
I thought Limbaugh was going to move to Costa Rica?....They were lucky he didnt go there....
rufus.
Wait a minute... I thought we WERE talking about idiots.
Glenn Beck is pretentious enough to quote Ghandi. As if I'm gonna be fooled into thinking that Beck is somehow "wise".
Ghandi was a proponent of civil dissobedience, and peacefull demonstrations. I believe he would've been on the side of the little man and in support of unions.
Glenn does'nt seem to like it when someone else disagrees with him, calling it propaganda and such. Well, Glenn, welcome to free speech! In a free society, you should accept the fact that people WILL disagree with you.
I just listened to the recording after reading all of the comments. Beck more than validated the point of the cartoon. He very clearly and unequivocally lists union organizers, along with progressives as "enemies of the country and the constitution." All the Beck supporters on board with that? Not a teeny tiny bit over the line, there?
The film was clearly "fair use" it was clearly intended as satire. It was clearly not presented as original content, or as part of original content.
It was brilliant on so many levels. Whether you agree with the political point of view or not is irrelevant. The point is how vulnerable we are to emotional manipulation and political misdirection. Donald Duck is the perfect character to make that point. If that disturbs you, I'd say, that means, in your case, the "shoe fits."
My other reaction was to be reminded of the level of skill and craftsmanship of those shorts animators, who are generally under acknowledged.
Politics Aside: I'm just curious how many people think that rap tunes that take copyrighted material and make new songs or play scratch of them without compensation to the original artists fit into this same category? It's an issue of fair-use as well. I know that it's a legal issue, but since I know people who enjoy the music, they dismiss it and call it a new art form. And what about all the re-edits of trailers that are on YouTube? Is there an issue with those, or are they just funny? I'm asking because I think this is a larger can-of-worms.
IMO, sampling on rap songs should pay royalties. I think the limit is eight bars for free. The new recording is commercial and made for profit, so the royalty is in order.
The re-edits are in another category; editorial, satire and not for profit. If anything, they support the profits of the original work.
Post a Comment