Testify! Why anti-circumvention exemptions are important for ALL filmmakers

Filmmakers who want to reuse the culture around them for commentary and criticism need to understand fair use, but that's not the only legal issue they have to worry about. Even if their use is a fair use, the DMCA Anti-Circumvention provisions make it illegal just to bypass any encryption (also known as Digital Rights Management (DRM) or Technological Protection Measures (TPM)) that restricts access to that content.

This is exactly as ridiculous as it sounds.  Simply accessing content to make a fair use can still be illegal under federal law, even when there is no copyright infringement!

Every 3 years, the Copyright Office considers exemptions to these anti-circumvention provisions.  The process is highly problematic, but right now its the only way to provide any relief from this overreaching law that's been on the books since 1998. This year we submitted comments on three important exemptions (regarding installing software of your choice on your devices, as well as your right to reuse video content under fair use).

On Wednesday May 20, we testified regarding Class 6, which is all about allowing filmmakers to bypass encryption on DVDs, Blu Ray discs, and online sources, to make use of content under fair use.  

We want to thank California Western law students Emory Roane and Patrick McManus for their great work helping prepare comments and testimony in this proceeding.  Executive Director Art Neill and Emory Roane are pictured below along with other proponents of Class 6, including Jack Lerner, Aaron Benmark, and Rahul Sajnani, of the UC Irvine Intellectual Property, Arts, Technology Clinic, Christopher Perez of Donaldson + Callif, and Gordon Quinn and Jim Morrissette, of Kartemquin Educational Films.

The proposed class 6 is described as follows

“Audiovisual works that are lawfully made and acquired from DVDs protected by Content Scramble System, or, if the work is not reasonably available in sufficient audiovisual quality on DVD, then from Blu-Ray discs protected by Advanced Access Content System, or, if the work is not reasonably available in sufficient audiovisual quality on DVD or Blu-Ray, then from digitally transmitted video protected by encryption measures when the circumvention is accomplished solely in order to incorporate portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of fair use in filmmaking."

In our testimony May 20, we focused on key areas where we are requesting modest improvements, including Blu-Ray discs as well as non-documentary filmmaking.

Regarding access to Blu Ray discs

The record in this proceeding establishes that 4k and ultraHD video standards have arrived. The quality of content on current Blu Ray discs, at 1080p HD,  is now often the minimum distribution and broadcast standard.

We can support this from our direct experience.  New Media Rights attorneys regularly review and negotiate distribution contracts for filmmakers, including domestic and international distributors.  In the last 3 years we’ve seen the standards rise for distributors, and for audiences, across the board.

Indeed, even when a filmmaker is offered a modest distribution contract, distributor requirements regarding reprocessing and uprezzing of footage, and editing of content, which can heap additional costs on projects that are already in the red, sometimes demanding significant portions of the licensing fee just to meet distributor technical standards. Access to Blu Ray ensures that filmmakers are relegated

If the the current exemption, which is just for just DVD's and online sources, is simply continued and not updated for modern filmmaking in 2015, the practical effect is to relegate filmmakers to degraded footage and diminished options for distribution channels.

All filmmaking purposes should be exempt, not just "documentary"

A. Drawing bright lines between types of filmmaking is difficult 

The record itself seems to show implicit disagreement about what to call non-documentary film... "narrative"? "fictional"? Its difficult to understand why the Copyright Office would entertain the task of drawing lines based on such difficult distinctions. 

The record also displays some question regarding what constitutes documentary filmmaking itself, and whether biopics should be included in that definition, particularly in the DVD CCA (the DVD copy protection folks) comments on pages 14-15.

Biopics in particular are great examples of works that incorporate both nonfiction and fictional elements, and suggest that drawing lines within filmmaking creates additional confusing standards,  

We testifed about our work with countless filmmakers who distribute using online distribution like Youtube and Vimeo that would not describe their work using the terms fictional, narrative, or documentary filmmaking, yet they certainly make fair use of works and deserve to access those works as much as any other artist.

Regardless, there are many examples  provided by proponents of non-documentary films that utilize content in fair use. Filmmakers who make non-documentary film can produce highly transformative films, so they should be able to circumvent TPMs regardless of what genre their films fall under.

B. Opponents focus on the idea that films with fictional content are “typically entertainment” does not obviate the need to protect all filmmakers rights’ circumvent for purposes of fair use

Opponents AACS LA  (Blu Ray) and DVD CCA (DVDs), wrote, borrowing a quote from the 2012 Section 1201 Rulemaking: Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights that “‘the purpose of a fictional film is typically entertainment.’”   The record shows otherwise. 

In fact, whether or not fictional films are “typically” entertainment is irrelevant to whether an exemption fictional filmmakers should exist. Even the use of the word “typically,” rather than a word like “always,” acknowledges that there are other purposes to fictional filmmaking, and as proponents discussed in the record, the standard for granting exemptions is whether there are likely to be noninfringing uses. 9 Whether a film entertains the audience should not matter for these exemptions, and the Copyright Office should acknowledge that it is a challenging position to draw lines between where nonfiction ends and fiction begins. The Copyright Office should also acknowledge the challenge in drawing lines based on types or genres of films, and focus on making sure fair uses will be exempt from liability.


In addition to focusing on the points above, we asked the Copyright Office as they hear the testimony, look at the record, and weigh the harms alleged by the parties, to keep in mind the following.

1. Remember, the proposed exemption ONLY permits uses covered by fair use.  If the use is not a fair use then anti-circumvention & copyright infringement claims persist. 

2. Remember, that if copyright holder does not provide a license for footage, and that footage is behind a TPM, the footage is removed from public discourse. (Fundamentally copyright law is about providing a limited monopoly to copyright owners so that they create more works.  That fundamental purpose is unaffected here, so providing a limited monopoly to copyright owners.)

Value legal services for internet users and creators?  Support them.


Content Types: 


9th Circuit reaffirms the denial of a dangerous preliminary injunction in the case of Garcia v Google

In November, New Media Rights joined the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, and others in filing an amicus brief urging the 9th Circuit to reaffirm the district court’s denial of a dangerous injunction that forced Google to take down the controversial "Innocence of Muslims" video based on a severe misapplication of law. Monday, the court did just that.

This decision is particularly good news for the filmmakers whom we work with, but it comes too late for some. In the 453 days the injunction against "Innocence of Muslims" was in place, we worked with several filmmakers threatened by actors that were unsatisfied with the final version of the film they acted in. In each of these cases, the actor relied on Garcia’s misapplication of copyright law in an attempt to remove otherwise entirely lawful content.

In the 453 days the injunction was in place it also became clearer that the current legal infrastructure to help filmmakers find the affordable legal services they need to thrive is woefully inadequate. All of the cases we encountered could have been prevented by an actor agreement or other crew release that took into account the legal uncertainty Garcia created by including a tailored copyright assignment clause. While the majority of the filmmakers we encountered did have written contracts; they relied on out of date form contracts that failed to account for the copyright in their actors performances since that right did not exist before the Appeal Courts prior ruling in Garcia.

While Mondays decision was a victory for free expression and copyright law, to ensure a world where expression is truly free we need to ensure all creators have access to the key legal infrastructure they need to create and thrive. In a world where heart wrenchingly bad facts make bad law it’s a matter of when not if the next major decision negatively affecting free expression occurs and we need to make sure creators are prepared to proactively deal with these decisions.

Value legal services for internet users and creators?  Support them.


Content Types: 

May newsletter: The legal issues today’s journalists, creators, and entrepreneurs share

The legal issues today’s Journalists, Creators, and Entrepreneurs share
In our 9 year history providing legal services on over 1400 individual matters, we’ve tracked a significant convergence in the legal needs of journalists, creators and entrepreneurs. This convergence is the result of the rise in the importance of nonprofit and independent projects and the common use of the internet as the means of distribution. As a result, a common set of core legal issues has emerged among journalists, creators, and early stage tech entrepreneurs.  Click here to check out the top 10 legal issues these groups share, and to learn about ways you can help us meet the growing demand for legal services.
Become a Organizational Supporter!
If you or your organization are already a Supporter, you know the benefits it brings, and and the tremendous impact you make.  If you aren't a Supporter already, what are you waiting for?  Check out the benefits of being a Supporter here.
Year Round Clinic for CWSL students!
We're proud to announce that our Internet & Media Law Clinic will now be offered year round at California Western School of Law!  The clinic provides students with experience working one-on-one with Internet & Media law clients in the field, as well as knowledge and skills regarding regulatory and policy work, scholarship, and public education and outreach. This year, clinic students will help us reach a milestone of providing services on our 1400th matter. We remain an independently funded program, so we also want to thank our individual supporters and foundations that allow us to assist clients and train students.
Applications are now open for fall, and close on June 9th!

FCC Cites NMR  in Open Internet Order!

If you read or skimmed through the FCC's new Open Internet Order, you might have noticed New Media Rights' comments to the proceeding are directly mentioned a couple of times.

In fact, the FCC cites our comments along with those of some other groups as support for the idea that "the same no-blocking rule should apply to both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access services." (page 50, cite 263) Meaning no matter how you access content, service providers won't be able to block content from getting to you!  Since wireless devices weren't previously included in net neutrality rules in 2010, this is a big win in the new rules! Recent lawsuits challenging the FCC's Title II reclassification of broadband Internet underscore that fight for net neutrality is not over, and the we must now defend the

Recent Events

  • May 7th NMR Executive Director Art Neill gave a workshop to over 70 individuals on Copyright 101 for Media Makers at San Diego City College. This event was made possible by San Diego City College and The City of San Diego Economic Development Department.  Thanks to Professor and NMR Advisory Board member Cy Kuckenbaker for working with us to organize the event!
  • May 14th  Hyperlocal social platforms, like Yik Yack and Whisper, are hot right now. But when things turn ugly, or they get into the wrong hands, whose responsibility is it? Staff Attorney Teri Karobonik joined a panel of other experts to discuss these issues and more at CyberHive's StartUp Breakfast; Unintended Consequences:  Who is responsible when hyperlocal social apps get in the wrong hands?

Quick Bytes

This work by New Media Rights is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Value legal services for internet users and creators?  Support them.


Content Types: 

The top 10 legal issues today’s Journalists, Creators, and Entrepreneurs share

“For too many journalists, one lawsuit could bankrupt them or their newsroom.” -Josh Stearns, GR Dodge Foundation

Photo credit: "A Bridge to Nowhere" by Paolo Crosetto on Flickr, used via Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license

In our 9 year history providing legal services on over 1400 individual matters, we’ve tracked a significant convergence in the legal needs of journalists, creators and entrepreneurs. This convergence is the result of the rise in the importance of nonprofit and independent projects and the common use of the internet as the means of distribution. As a result, a common set of core legal issues has emerged among journalists, creators, and early stage tech entrepreneurs.  We share the top 10 areas of convergence below.

Right now, to help meet this need, we’re leading efforts to revitalize and grow the Online Media Legal Network.  Once based at the Berkman Center, it represented the kind of geographic and expertise diversity that’s necessary for these projects to flourish. The disappearance of this network, as well as other support projects like the Stanford Fair Use project, has been a step back in critical support services.But as much as we value a good list, this is not an academic exercise. The reality is that these areas of convergence represent a huge unmet need for legal services desperately in need of effective infrastructure to help a wide variety of independent media and creator projects find the affordable legal services they need grow.

We’re looking to revitalize and grow the OMLN, which will also help us better address the 400-500 legal requests we receive each year. This is just one way to begin to address the common legal issues we outline below. 

Top legal issues that today’s journalists, creators, and entrepreneurs have in common.

10. Defamation, Privacy, and Accuracy of Information – The best independent journalism projects, bloggers, filmmakers, early stage nonprofits, and artists share work that shines a light onto the practices of the most powerful individuals, businesses and governments in our world. But shining this light requires being accurate with the information that is published online, and compliance with a web of state and federal privacy laws. Without the services of an in-house legal department to do a pre-publication review, and often without an entity as a shield, many assume enormous personal legal liability when they share controversial work. Dealing with defamation and privacy issues before a work is published, and having somewhere to turn when disputes arise can help make sure a project doesn’t die on the vine. 

9. Access to public records – Journalists need access to public records, but so do documentary filmmakers, researchers, historians, archivists, and a variety of entrepreneurs and nonprofits trying to take raw data and turn it into actionable information.  Accessing this information requires untangling a complex web of state and federal law.  With the help of an attorney not only can navigating this web be a bit easier but in the common case where a lawful request was denied; an attorney can bring formal litigation to ensure the release of records.

8. Recording laws – When can you audio or video record someone secretly? When do you need a release? Then, once you make your recording, how are you able to reuse that recording and the image of any individuals?  Photos, video, and audio are the preeminent multimedia of our day, so knowing the rules around their creation and dissemination has become critical to everyone who shares multimedia online.   This is typically state law which means multiple lawyers may need to be consulted about laws in different states. Without an effective network creators can plug into for advice, all too often they “wing it”, only to end up running into expensive legal problems later.

7. Responding to illegitimate takedowns – We rely on a private intermediary services to share content with each other such as websites, apps, and webhosts.  Unfortunately, bogus content takedowns often falsely rely on copyright, trademark, and a variety of abusive terms of use violation claims.  Many intermediary services will quickly remove content to avoid liability. Navigating each service’s appeals process, and making the legal arguments to get your otherwise legal content restored is not always easy.  Negotiating with service providers and claimants to restore legitimate content often takes an experienced attorney explaining the user’s legal position.  Without that assistance, in addition to content removal and the risk of related lawsuits, a key consequence of takedowns is that a user can have their account permanently terminated, silencing their voice.

6. Reducing liability as an intermediary – Acting as an intermediary for user generated content; even with legal shields available to protect services from the illegal behavior of their users can be a tricky an expensive process. While some safe harbors, such as the Communications Decency Act section 230 Immunity are more automatic, complying with  the Digital Millennium Copyright and state privacy laws often requires the assistance of a local specialized attorney to draft key documents such as terms of use and privacy policies but also to provide practical counsel on how to process DMCA notices.  Without this help it is often a question of when and not if services will face business ending litigation. Without a network of skilled attorneys to reach out to not only are services unable to find attorneys in the first place, but they are also unable to find litigation counsel to assist them when things go wrong.

5. How to properly work with independent contractors and employees – Many early stage projects rely on independent contractors.  A well drafted contract sets the expectations with independent contractor, including who owns what the contractor creates, how much and when they’ll be paid, and what exactly the contractor will be doing.  As any journalism, creative, or tech startup grows, more folks become employees, and the patchwork of many state specific employment related laws kicks in. This is another area where individuals and early stage entities will often “hope for the best” instead of seeking out legal counsel due to cost.

4. Intellectual Property and Licensing – Today’s independent artists, filmmakers, and journalists are plugging in to existing distribution channels, accessing audiences and sustaining their work through licensing deals.  Understanding how intellectual property law works, particularly copyright and trademark law, is one way that today’s journalists, creators, and entrepreneurs sustain and grow their work.  The Knight Foundation, in its report Gaining Ground: How nonprofit news ventures seek sustainability, recently noted that early stage nonprofit journalism projects appear to focus primarily on content production until they reach a budget of $500,000, where the larger portion of budgets start to go marketing, development, and technology expenses.  We can confirm this experience on the ground.  Many of our most successful nonprofit journalism clients, as well as creative clients like filmmakers, understand that one of their most important assets is their intellectual property, but they aren’t always experts in contracts or licensing.  Attorneys can help make sure that the deal presented in a contract actually reflects the client understanding and is appropriate given their business model.

3. Forming an entity – The proliferation of smaller entities and individual journalism and creative projects leads those projects to ask the same questions startup entrepreneurs must ask. Setting up your entity sets the tone for the entire organization, and mistakes at this stage are costly. While some DIY services for business formation exist, we’ve seen many businesses that made critical mistakes using DIY services at this critical early stage. Correcting these errors can be more expensive than getting proper legal counseling the first time.

2. Review & drafting of many, many types of contracts – In addition to licensing and employment contracts discussed above, journalists, creators, and tech startups share the need for review and drafting of many types of contracts. This includes insurance contracts, foundation and government contracting agreements, fiscal sponsorships (when projects are incubated within larger nonprofits), software and API licenses (open source and proprietary), open source content licenses such as Creative Commons. Without easy access to knowledgeable counsel, many creators will sign unfair or even abusive contracts that could tie up their project for years.

1. Fair Use – Andy Warhol said “good artists borrow, great artists steal.”  It may not be as catchy of a quote, but many great journalists, creators, and startups understand their rights to reuse content without permission.  Understanding and exercising fair use allows us to engage in social, cultural, and political dialogue.  It’s a critical safety valve to the broad protection and extremely long duration of copyright law. But as far as laws go, it’s on the complicated side.  When journalists, artists, filmmakers, and startups want to share new perspectives and world-changing ideas, a quality fair use analysis can make that happen.  Moreover, many filmmakers and journalists need a fair use opinion from an attorney to obtain insurance and be picked up by distributors. But the reality is that only a small number of attorneys in the country are experts in fair use law, and when you narrow that list to folks willing to work on a reduced fee basis that number shrinks considerably and clients  never find the legal services they need.

Rather than treating journalists, artists, creators, and startups as silos, let’s recognize the common legal issues faced across all of these groups, and find ways to address the growing demand for legal services by building key legal infrastructure.

If you’re interested in working on this issue you can reach out to me at art @ newmediarights.org


Value legal services for internet users and creators?  Support them.


Content Types: 

Event: Unintended consequences of hyperlocal social apps

Hyperlocal social platforms, like Yik Yack and Whisper,  are hot right now. But when things turn ugly, or they get into the wrong hands, whose responsibility is it? Who foots the bill for the fallout? The founders and developers who didn't foresee the (negative) possibilities? Parents? Teachers? Consumers? Law enforcement?

Staff Attorney Teri Karobonik will join a panel of other experts on Thursday May 14th to discuss these issues and more at CyberHive's StartUp Breakfast; Unintended Consequences:  Who is responsible when hyperlocal social apps get in the wrong hands?

For more information and to RSVP check out theCyberTECH and CyberHive Startup Incubator Meetup page for the event here.

Value legal services for internet users and creators?  Support them.


Content Types: 

Event: Copyright for Media Makers at San Diego City College

This free workshop is open to the public and we want to thank the San Diego Economic Development Department, whose support made this workshop possible.

Value legal services for internet users and creators?  Support them.


Content Types: 

Domain names aren't protected by trademarks and other myths

At New Media Rights we often get questions about domain names and trademarks. Many of these questions are the result of some deeply held myths about the use of trademarks in domain names. In this blog we’ll explore & debunk some of these key myths.

Myth: Domain names can’t be protected by trademark law.
Truth: Domains containing trademarks can be protected by trademark law.

This is one of the biggest myths related to trademarks and domain names, and is a byproduct of the complicated history of the protection of domain names. In the early days of the internet, it was a common practice for individuals to buy up top level domains (like .com or .org) of existing trademarked brands or slight misspellings of those brands. Not only was it an easy way to bring in advertising revenue, but many individuals were successful in selling those domains back to major brands at a hefty profit. Some also used it as a way to disrupt a competitors business.  Understandably, this made owners of major brands very upset. To these brands it seemed wrong that someone could profit off a domain using their trademark. But in the early 90’s it wasn’t exactly clear how trademark law or the law in general could be used to stop this behavior.

As a result a number of laws were passed to remedy the situation, the most prominent of which is the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d). This law essentially prohibits buying a URL with the bad faith intent to profit off someone else’s trademark.  For example buying cocacola.exposed with the hope of selling the domain to coke to make a profit would be an example of cybersquatting not permitted under the act.

In addition to the ACPA, The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) run by ICANN is another out of court arbitration process that can be used to resolve disputes about cybersquatting. Although not identical, the standard’s for what Cybersquatting is in a UDRP action is very similar.

Myth: Domain names are protected by copyright law.
Truth: Domain names are not protected by copyright law for more information on why check out our copyright FAQ "Is a domain name subject to copyright law?"

Myth: There are absolutely no circumstances where you can use a company’s trademark in a domain
Truth: There are a few, relatively narrow, exceptions that could allow you to use someone else’s trademark in your domain.


  • First Amendment: Using the trademark in the domain of another company to parody, satirize or otherwise express opinions about a company will likely be protected by the first amendment.  Taking the example used above let say you wanted to buy cocacola.exposed but instead of selling it, you wanted to develop a website that discussed the potential health risks related to drinking coca-cola and other drinks produced by the company. That use would likely be protected under the first amendment particularly if the website was also non-commercial.
  • Descriptive: The descriptive use defense comes into play when using a trademark for its plain English meaning.  For example registering Marlins.com for a site all about fishing for marlins would be using the word marlin for its plain English meaning.  Although the Miami Marlins have a trademark on “Miami Marlins”, trademark descriptive use would allow for the registration and use of Marlins on a site all about the fish.
  • Nominative Use: The Nominative use defense comes into play when: (1)The product or service being identified can’t be readily identified without its trademark; (2)The usage of the trademark is limited to what is needed to identify it; and (3)No sponsorship is implied by using the mark. Because meeting all of these factors in a URL is challenging this defense comes up less often but is still possible. For example, let’s say a shoe shop at the URL www.shoes4u.com had a page where they listed all of the Nike shoes they have for sale located at www.shoes4u.com/Nike. Provided there was nothing on the page itself implying Nike’s endorsement  this would likely be considered normative use because Nike shoes cannot be identified without their trademark , the use is limited to what is necessary to identify the shoes as Nike shoes and no sponsorship is implied by using Nike.

Trademark law and cybersquatting are complicated issues and best discussed on a case-by-case basis. If someone has stolen your domain name, someone has accused you of misusing their trademark in your domain name, or you’re unsure whether or not you’re cybersquatting please consider reaching out to an attorney for assistance.

Value legal services for internet users and creators?  Support them.


Content Types: 

Staff attorney to speak on "Ethics and Laws in Border Reporting" panel hosted by The National Association of Hispanic Journalists San Diego/Tijuana chapter

The National Association of Hispanic Journalists San Diego/Tijuana chapter has put together an exciting panel, including our own Staff Attorney Teri Karobonik, which will cover ethical and legal issues related to border reporting. The panel will also discuss what border stories we need to start telling focusing on case studies from the panelists and end with a Q&A.

The panel will take place Saturday March 21, 2015 from 11a.m.- 1p.m.  in U-T San Diego's 3rd floor Meeting Room.  Click here for more information.

Value legal services for internet users and creators?  Support them.


Content Types: 

Déjà vu: Viacom removes Jonathan McIntosh's Daily Show remix with 2nd abusive DMCA takedown notice

Recently, (and just in time for Fair Use Week 2015)remix artist Jonathan McIntosh ( a New Media Rights client and Advisory Board member) has been facing off with Viacom. Viacom sent a second abusive DMCA takedown to the same video, despite withdrawing a DMCA takedown back in 2013.  With our help, Jonathan is appealing the takedown and working to restore the video. The incident highlights the many abusive DMCA and copyright related takedowns New Media Rights has seen over the years, often from large media companies like Viacom. 

Here's Jonathan's story in his own words (link to original and coverage on Techdirt):

On February 3rd 2015 my remix video entitled "Too Many Dicks on the Daily Show" was removed from YouTube via a bogus takedown from Viacom claiming copyright infringement.

The remix is a transformative work critical of the gender disparities on The Daily Show and constitutes a fair use of copyrighted visual material as provided for in section 107 of the US copyright law.

This is the second time Viacom has abused the DMCA takedown process to prevent this particular fair use video from being seen. It's especially ironic considering each episode of The Daily Show relies on the fair use doctrine in order to satirically comment on mainstream news broadcasts. I am currently appealing this latest takedown with the help of my attorneys from New Media Rights.

Back in August 2013, after nearly 2 years on YouTube, my remix was also removed without warning by Viacom claiming infringement for "visual content" from The Daily Show. I immediately informed my attorneys at New Media Rights who in turn contacted Viacom to inquire about the takedown. Quickly thereafter I received an automated message from YouTube stating that Viacom had rescinded their copyright infringement claim. Viacom provided no other information or explanation but the video was again viewable on YouTube and so I assumed the matter had been resolved. Roughly a year and a half later I find myself dealing with the same exact situation.

As I explained in my original blog post, the video is presented as an episode of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart which is interrupted by a remixed critique of the show's gender imbalance and "boys' locker room" comedy stylings. The remix was created with clips borrowed from over 100 episodes of The Daily Show combined with a portion of the Flight of the Conchords song "Too Many Dicks on the Dance Floor" in order to subvert both sources.

Made in 2011, the video was meant to highlight the lack of women in on-screen or leading creative roles on The Daily Show over its 17-year run. At the time only 3 of the 12 regular correspondents/contributors on The Daily Show were women. Only 2 of the 16 writers were women and the numbers have not improved much in the 4 years since I published the critique (although Jessica Williams is a brilliant addition to the cast).On both occasions Viacom has abused the DMCA takedown system to remove my video, which has resulted in an unjust strike placed against my YouTube account. On both occasions I've been temporarily locked out of my channel and forced to attend YouTube's copyright school and pass a test on fair use. This is particularly patronizing since just over a year ago YouTube invited me to their space in Los Angeles to give a lecture on transformative storytelling and to specifically highlight the fair use questions that arise when remixing video footage for the purposes of political parody.

I should also note that YouTube currently features another one of my remix videos as an example of fair use video on their official page explaining the fair use doctrine to their user base.

Again, I'm in the process of trying to get my video back online. For now you can watch it over at the Internet Archive.

One last note: New Media Rights has offered me invaluable advice and guidance throughout these battles. They are a small, non-profit, two-lawyer operation on a shoe-string budget fighting to make sure artists like me are heard. So if you can, please consider donating to them here.


Value legal services for internet users and creators?  Support them.


Content Types: 

February Newsletter -- Getting results: FCC now considering proposal that would actually protect the Open Internet.

In this months newsletter:

The FCC's proposal to reclassify the Internet under Title II is a big win for the Open Internet!
Recently, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler proposed reclassifation of the internet as a Title II communications service.  If adopted February 26, the proposal would give the FCC the legal authority it needs to preserve and protect the Open Internet. Executive Director Art Neill sat down with KPBS to discuss why the Federal Communication Commission's new Open Internet rules are necessary to ensure a free and open internet

For more on the Net Neutrality debate and what it means for you, check out our latest blog post on Net Neutrality here.

New Media Rights files critical comments in anti-circumvention proceedings to protect internet users and creators' rights.
New Media Rights has filed comments with the Copyright Office supporting four specific exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s anti-circumvention provisions that will protect both internet users and creators' rights under fair use. Exemptions are argued every 3 years, and ensure that accessing copyrighted material for purposes of fair use don't needlessly violate federal law.

Similar to our 2009 and 2012 comments to the Copyright Office, these comments offer direct evidence supporting the right of internet users and video creators to circumvent technological protection measures to a) allow individuals to take control of the apps and services they use on their mobile devices, and b) allow creators, internet users, and filmmakers to reuse video content for fair use purposes.  Thanks to our legal intern California Western School of Law 2L Pat McManus for his assistance in preparing these comments. You can read more here.

NMR in the news

Upcoming events

"Print Me a Song: Emerging Issues in 3D Printing and Copyright Law"Staff Attorney, Teri Karobonik, will be giving a presentation to the San Diego Sports and Entertainment Lawyers February 26 at 6pm about emerging issues in copyright. In addition to covering some of the basics she’ll cover emerging issues in 3D printing like singing printers, fan works and even #LeftShark . More info here.

“Copyright, Trademark, and Branding IP”Executive Director Art Neill will be giving a presentation from February 26 at 5:30 (yes the same day as the event above), on the basics of Copyright and Trademark that tech entrepreneurs need to know.  This is a free event, targeted at entrepreneurs and creators and if you’re interested in attending, you can find more info here.

All the best,

Art Neill, Teri Karobonik, and the New Media Rights team

Value legal services for internet users and creators?  Support them.


Content Types: