Quote:
Originally Posted by Fletch XXX
fair use is INTENDED for newspapers, education, and spreading of info regarding events, people, etc...
and again, newspapers arent taking vogue covers or lindsay lohan spreads are they? Nope. Most newspapers feature images they shoot themselves or associated content pics.
Porn paysites that charge recurring $30 based on celeb content is another story.
Fair use has 4 factors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
First being is it intended for education, or commercial. newspapers educate the public, porn celeb sites do not. |
the betamax case established that the only critical one is "economic harm" one
because
sony make money on the vcr ( 1k per unit)
copied the entire file (taped the show)
and had commentary, educational etc in place
the only consideration was that the user had already bought/granted the viewing rights, so the act of moving those viewing rights to another day/time cost the copyright holder nothing.
While we now know that is not true (my own worst enemy got tivoed to death) it doesn't matter now because the fair use right has been established, and as a result the exclusive right of the copyright holder are null and void even though the economy has changed to make the original fair use condition to no longer be true.
i believe these celeb sites are covered by a similar "unfair" extention of fair use.