[GregShelton]

I would not agree that it's copyright infringement. We've transformed the content of copyrighted work and is using it for a transformative (educational) purpose.

"since the defendant has engaged in both types of transformation, we would expect a court generally to find that the defendant’s use is transformative and that the transformativeness factor weighs in favor of the defendant’s fair use claim (though how strongly it does so may vary depending on how transformative the defendant’s use is)" http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/treese/fair_use_transforma...

[micks56]

Transformation and educational purpose do not mean what you think they mean.

1. Transformation is more than adding your own translation on top of the movie. You need to change the meaning or expression of the work. The meaning of your version is exactly the same as the original by definition (you are making a word for word translation).

2. Your "educational purpose" argument is diminished when you affect the market for the work. The movie studio will argue your students should rent/buy the movie and watch with subtitles. Your website is taking away sales. Also, if you try to earn money from this you are no longer seeking any educational purpose.

3. You are broadcasting the original movie without permission. That is copyright infringement.

4. Regarding your quote, you should read the Blanch v. Koons case and look at Blanch's original work versus Koon's alleged infringing work to see what transformation requires.

[GregShelton]

What I mean by transformation is that we transform movies into games (Voice Over videos) by muting some dialog lines. That changes the meaning of the work. It's not entertainment anymore. No one will watch movie with half dialog lines muted.

The only thing students can do with DVD is to watch it (passive entertainment).

In our case students learn dialog lines and than perform them with the help of Voice Over videos (active learning).

I think that we create a new market for people with a specific need. When people pay for access to Voice Over videos they will pay because they want to overcome Anxiety, not because they want to see movie for entertainment.

Thats how I see it. May be I wrong

[micks56]

That changes nothing. Still copyright infringement. See above.

[GregShelton]

Thank you for your comments. It seems I have to follow your advice and contact indie moviemakers or use public domain movies

[micks56]

I have an idea for you. This might work. You REALLY need to read up on Copyright Law, though. To be honest, you might not be the best person for this. You may want to speak with an experienced copyright person. Anyway...

This might work: Stop broadcasting the video. You make an audio only CD where you and friends play the parts in the movies. The customer is instructed on when to start the audio CD so that it syncs with the movie. You can also distribute a book that tells the person when to start and stop the movie/audio and then do your thing with your company.

So all you are selling is an audio CD, which you performed, and a companion workbook.

This MAY work because what you are doing is making a "cover song" of the movie audio. You will need a mechanical license, if it is even available. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_license

I have never heard of this for movies, but it might work. A mechanical license will be cheaper and easier than negotiating with a movie studio.

This is how it works in the music world: http://www.harryfox.com/public/FAQ.jsp

No idea if you can do this in the movie world, but you should check it out.

[prodigal_erik]

Rifftrax.com (some of the MST3K stars) has been putting out very good voiceover tracks for current movies. You might ask them what kind of licensing they needed to go through.

[GregShelton]

Thanks for your idea. I will think about it. Really appreciate your advice.