Is taking a screenshot of a movie an example of fair use | Hacker News Reader

Is taking a screenshot of a movie an example of fair use

5 pointsp0w3n3d14 comments

I've recently tried to make a meme based on Gravity Falls scene. As I have Disney+ subscription, I opened browser, navigated to desired scene and took screenshot on MacOS. To my consternation, the screenshot went black.

I have learned the hard way, that current application of WideVine DRM disallow making the screenshots. However I've always thought that making a screenshot is an example of fair use. I wonder how could I, for example, make an article on some movie and attach screenshots, if I am not allowed to make them? Should I use those which are only on official site? What about bloopers (like e.g. Star Wars badly done fighting scene choreography)?

My question is - is WideVine taking my rights to fair use away? If yes, can I fight for them somehow? Also I live in Poland and I'm convinced that our rights of fair use are really widened comparing to those that are in US. Deepl translation of the Polish act follows:

  The Act provides that it is permissible to quote excerpts from distributed works or minor works in their entirety in works constituting a self-contained whole to the extent justified by explanation, critical analysis, teaching or the rights of the creative genre.

Fair use isn’t a right, it’s a defense available for infringing on someone else’s [copy]rights. That distinction is why the act you’ve quoted very precisely says that it is “permissible” for you to quote excerpts [for specified uses] while it emphatically does not say that you are “entitled” to quote excerpts… by your reasoning an author would HAVE to provide you screenshots on demand simply because you asserted fair use.

I hate that they’ve stooped to stopping a screenshot — note, that they haven’t stopped you picking up a camera, though — but they absolutely haven’t infringed on any of your rights, in any currently extant country, by doing so.

> My question is - is WideVine taking my rights to fair use away? If yes, can I fight for them somehow? Also I live in Poland and I'm convinced that our rights of fair use are really widened comparing to those that are in US.

They're not. They're narrower than in the US, because US fair use is very vague where as copyright law in any EU country is an implementation of the EU InfoSec directive https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32....

The directive sets out a number of limited, specific exemptions to copyright that people accused of infringement can use as a defence. The are much narrower than "fair use". And "I want to make a meme" isn't one of them.

And again, none of these are rights. They are defences. Nobody is required to actively facilitate them, and you can point a camera at your screen if you want to in order to utilise them for, say, criticism and review.

As you say, the act says "permissible." That's not the same as "you have an inalienable right nobody can block or even get inadvertently get in the way of."

Widevine (google property) is just a technology and does not include the concept of Fair Use. This is where DRM really means Digital Restriction Management, not Digital Rights Management. The aim of Widevine (or Microsoft PlayReady, Apple Fairplay) is to "fail closed": nothing works unless it works in exactly the way it's intended to work. And the intention is to limit what a user can do to the bare minimum, in the DRM model the user is essentially the enemy.

DRM aims to accomplish this by all means. Hardware, anti-tampering software, law (DMCA), hoarding telemetry and private data (Widevine DRM probably serves as a super-cookie for google).

...Now that does not mean you cannot make a screenshot. Just use a camera to take a picture of your screen! :-)

yeah, great, the camera photo of my screen will be of an excellent quality... showing all those subpixels and my reflection in the screen glare :D

What I meant to say is that there's always the analog hole, that DRM can't close. With a modest contemporary phone it works surprisingly well, especially since streaming media are rarely of high fidelity.

And if you insist on a digital copy, plug an HDMI cable into a capture device. Attempts like HDCP have attempted to close this one, but I doubt DRM software would attempt relying on that.

What I mean is that "there's always a loophole" statement is dangerous, because allows corps to squeeze and squeeze loopholes, unless there will be an unnecessarily expensive equipment required to exercise my law to screenshot

It’s still Digital _Rights_ Management… the rights in this case belong to the copyright holder, not to the consumer… they’re literally failing towards protecting rights that exist over rights that are only imaginary.

Law isn't absolute, that's why we have courts, judges, juries. Unlike source code, laws are dynamic and subject to interpretation.

It's a restriction because it's attempting to protect the copyright, while violating the rights granted to the user under fair use policy. Similarly, it could be violating privacy rights or open back doors that violate cybersecurity laws. If laws change (copyright laws, for instance), DRM won't magically adjust.

[EDIT] In summary: it's a balance, where different conflicting interests ought to be weighed. But we have DRM trying to close every door except the one intended by the copyright holder; versus: the user expecting stuff to work somewhat coherently and finding ways to circumvent the restrictions (often, though certainly not always, with benign intentions).

Sure, laws are open to interpretation… by judges, and judges will quite happily tell you that there are no rights “granted” under the fair use doctrine, and that no violation of those imaginary rights can possibly exist. The only legal right in play is copyright and the legitimate copyright holder has that right, exclusively, and can sue anyone they believe is infringing on their copyright… what the fair use doctrine carves out is an affirmative defense for particular kinds of transformative infringement, but it grants no right to infringe to the infringer, any more than successfully asserting self defense grants the self defender the right to murder. Each doctrine excuses from consequence what remains an unlawful act.

If it was easy, people would have done it. These companies are flush with cash and legally armed to the teeth. Unless you are prepared to dedicate your entire life to this cause, the numbers don't add up for you to concern yourself with this. Write to your political representatives if you want to do the easy thing you can do.

Building DRM is actually quite simple, but building secure DRM is surprisingly difficult.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/security-researcher-cracks-goo...

So far, Apple (Fairplay) is probably in the vanguard. But the obstacles aren't so much technical. It's laws like digital millennium copyright act and lack of a need. Many people are fine paying for access and don't mind that it isn't available on some of their devices. Those that don't want to pay have easier avenues like password sharing, bittorrent.

The fact that it breaks fair use (and probably invades your privacy, or is riddled with bugs and security holes) is only interesting to FOSS hippies like us here.

I think we are constantly losing our subsequent rights, that are taken from us in such manner: 1. people are allowed to X

2. other people exist who can do X in a malicious way that is forbidden

3. let's make a law that will prevent every citizen from X

4. only lawful citizens are forbidden to X, criminals are still X-ing

The same is with the fading DVDs/BDs - you are forbidden to make a copy of DVD/BD unless it's a backup copy. Of course there is a DRM that forbids you to make a backup copy. Political representatives say "hey, but the company is obliged to make a copy for you if your copy is broken". However:

a. the company or its representative in your country may cease to exist (e.g. games that were published in magazines)

b. copies may become unavailable

c. price of the copy may be higher than it should be

The world isn't fair.

But the DRM folks are fighting an impossible battle, trying to make abundance scarce: Given an "asset" in digital form, make it so that it can be (mass-) distributed but cannot be copied.

The solution they choose: encrypt the content with one key. The encrypted content is freely distributed (though not without cost, to the distributor), but worthless without the key. So the key is sold to every user that pays, but resides in a black box DRM library to prevent redistribution by the user.

At scale, that's like giving all residents of, say, Luxembourg a copy of the same key and saying: you're not allowed to look at it because we're afraid you'll share the key with foreigners.

Once you have physical access to a computer, it can only hide its secret through obscurity. And security through obscurity isn't the best.

It is easy, the web is awash in memes that use screenshots.

On Windows it's as easy as pressing the PrintScn key to copy a screenshot to the clip board then paste it in to any image application. Google tells me "Command+Shift+3" is the equivalent on Mac.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com