Printable View
Read the full articleQuote:
So why would a video of a mildly overweight toddler dancing badly receive 518,448 views on YouTube? It immediately comes to mind why a toddler dancing very well might be popular. It immediately comes to mind why a spectacularly cute toddler dancing badly might be popular. I wish this were not the case, but it also immediately comes to mind why a grotesquely overweight toddler dancing badly would make for a popular YouTube video. No, this toddler is not related...
That is not an overweight toddler. That is a normal sized toddler. I however, was an overweight toddler, affectionately called Fat Belly Black. And dancing badly? That's kind of negative. I think it's totally cute. Maybe I missed your point on that first paragraph, but people clearly need more cute in their lives. I'm getting the impression you potentially might need some more cute in your life too.
You raise a good question concerning fair use. I don't think there has been adequate clarification in the law. I have no interest in the specific video, but I do see audio/video on that and other sites which are probably borderline cases.
Ok, my non-legal counsel out the wazoo just woke up opinion is that this from an origin of species perspective, this falls within a category that could be called personal journalism and therefor should fall under fair use. Shared vacation snapshots nearly always have some sort of protected trademarked copy written materials appearing incidentally or even on purpose and it would be onerous to legally require them to be free of such attributes before they could be shared publicly. The Washington post should not have to blur the label on the can if they have a picture of a candidate drinking a beer and MSNBC shouldn't have to buy usage rights if they do a live report from a political convention during a portion of the show that happens to have a well known pop song playing between speeches. I know that in todays media Astroturf flavored mishmash, it is harder and harder to determine what is and is not commercial use, but YouTube is the only one, besides Universal, who is going to benefit commercially from this sort of user generated media. If it were promoting baby dancing shoes, that would be a different story. This lady is essentially reporting on family events for all interested and this event happens to be baby dances to a portion of a classic song. I feel that video shot of a dance performance is also journalistic fair use, but I would certainly defer to a stronger legal opinion on that matter.
Some of my opinion also rests on the structure of the presentation and the intent of the creation. For example, if the video started at the beginning of the song and ended at the end of the song, rather than just occurring during a portion of the song, then the video is in some respects more about the song than the event, structurally. If a teenager films herself in her bedroom showing off her ass shaking skillz while she plays a hot new track, that is more of an infringement of the songwriters work than if say some creep standing outside her window films her filming herself shaking her ass while the track plays, even if what he's doing is more criminal in other respects. :1orglaugh
Bwahaha (Hell, you may be right) :1orglaugh:thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by ForrestBlack
Wasn't this already done in the 90's? the whole Ally mcbeal thing.
Damn, my jaw dropped when I read that. The company's actions don't make any sense.
However, Forrest's commentary certainly does.
Ugh, I need to get this bad taste out of my mouth.
in a strange sort of way it all makes sense
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForrestBlack
thats what im saying, hes not overweight at all..i was fat too...i weighed 11 pounds and had a banner above me that read "thunder thighs"..
in any case...cute baby
My nephew was 9.5 pounds as a newborn. Doesn't seem fat to me. I have never been around enough kids to gauge that though.