AFAIK, something can only be protected under claims of parody if it’s parodyzing the original material, not if it’s making fun of iPad availability or whatever.

Maybe it’s time someone’s created a site as an SRT repository of these subtitles, SRT is a subtitle file: a small text file that contains timing info about when to display a particular text, understandable by all good media players. Surely they can’t DMCA that?

Even for those who find themselves a bit jarred when they get to the most-frequently parodied scene, there is a lot of movie after that point to become re-immersed in grim history.

Great movie – though I wouldn’t call it “entertaining.”

Second, the parody/fair use argument would be much stronger if these vids were actually parodies, but as far as I can figure — and IANAL — they’re in fact satires. And satire is not protected by fair use. Avram’s post (#13) isn’t quite correct because ‘The Cat NOT in the Hat’ is not in fact ‘an example of a parody that was found not to be fair use’; TCNITH is a satire, and that’s why it lost the case.

Also, Constantin Films can go fuck themselves.

http://blogs.kansascity.com/tvbarn/2010/04/hitler.html

Hello.

I have rented and purchased many of your films over the years and have enjoyed them greatly.

However, I do not approve of your censorial disregard for the rules of fair use, legitimate satire, and parody.

http://laughingsquid.com/hitler-downfall-remixes-removed-from-youtube/

I will not be purchasing or using any of your products until the videos mentioned in that blog post are reinstated on YouTube.

Thanks for your time.

The email address is found on this page:
http://www.constantin-film.de/2/company/constantin-film-ag/about-us/about-us.html

To the point. Took me two minutes. Fuck them sideways if they can’t take a joke. And they do make some excellent films, BTW. Downfall being one of many.

http://boingboing.net/2009/05/28/eff-chairman-makes-a.html

There is no way it is possible to argue that these parodies hurt the film’s producers… Exposure is exposure. Sampling is acceptable in the music industry as long as those samples are cleared so the original creator gets credit (and people get paid). Everyone who has seen this meme knows where this clip comes from. No one would purposefully avoid the film because they have seen the memes – what would the rationale be?

I, like many others it seems, was keen to check out the original in context. I haven’t yet had a chance, but I am most def not going to seek it out now.

Intended result: Fail.

Admirable, but “excellent films” are few and far between…too few and far between to deliberately avoid those whose distributors (not the director or actors or writer, I’m sure) are over-cautious about internet video.

I agree.

But do you think it might have reached a point where having that scene used as parody so many times might actually devalue the original material, thereby entitling the copyright holders to complain?

My Netflix queue says different.