To use, or not to use?

    In the comic book styled article, "Bound by law?", we follow Akiko, a fictional documentary film maker as she explores the world of copyright laws, fair use, public domain, and the process of clearing rights to copyrighted material in what she may have filmed. After getting through the "Tales from the Crypt"- esque opening, Akiko is joined by two companions who guide her through what it means to use copyrighted material that may just incidentally appear in her footage, and how she can jump through the legal hurdles, so to say, to determine whether she may leave the work in her piece under fair use, have to contact a copyright owner to clear rights to use footage containing logos, products, theme songs, etc., or if it's safest for her to just remove the content from her footage all together.

    It's quite apparent that Akiko is having a hard time as an artist understanding how the issue of intellectual property and copyrighting won't discourage her from continuing her art; there seems to be no legal way around artistic expression for a documentary film maker- if one is shooting real life as it happens, of course tons of copyrighted material is going to show up in the footage; it's the world we live in. Here is where the idea of fair use comes in.

    I didn't quite understand myself what fair use really was while reading the article, so I searched for it and found the actual legal policy (I can't really paraphrase it, so take a look at this webpage: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html). The authors actually define fair use by stating, "[fair use] should mean you don't need permission for incidentally captured fragments [of film]." (pg 14). But, fair use really isn't that simple; there is still the risk of a lawsuit or a demand for royalties from a copyright holder if one decides to claim the fair use policy when using content. If something seems it may go awry if used, the policy actually states that it may be best to just contact the copyright holder and ask permission to use. In the case of Akiko, who does view the laws as obstacles of her art, she seems that she would actually argue the case of fair use for what she will or has already used in her footage. Fair use can't really be defined in most situations- it's just one of those things that will always have a fine line of what it really is. Akiko, if arguing fair use for content, could win a case in court if a lawsuit were filed against her, or she may not; clear, supporting evidence would have to be provided and well represented. 

    Based on my understanding, not just on fair use, the authors of this article through Akiko and her legal companions were asking artists to make themselves familiar with copyright laws, public domain, and fair use, as well as how to use them to their advantage to avoid legal troubles which could, as illustrated, stifle their artistic creativity. The laws are really there to protect, but they can seem to hurt if not properly understood. 

    Fair use, whether incidental or on purpose, I feel is something worth arguing. Let's assess how often we watch comedic parodies on pop culture: it's on VH1, all over YouTube (Kingsley, Shane Dawson, just to name a few YouTube parody comedians in their own right), and just about anywhere you go- they're all examples of fair use! No one is suing them for this (unless they're some kind of tightwad always looking for a way to make that extra buck.)

    Fair use- is it worth arguing? Should one just leave content out to avoid any legal hassle? Are you going to call Abercrombie and Apple every time you photograph someone doing homework in Starbucks and ask if it's ok for their logos to be in your photo? Should I be asking Starbucks for permission to use their name in this post?