Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
oh and mrskin example is exactly on point with this issue.
Mutt is complaining that brazzers took a single image from a video and presents it in their advertising material without the permission of the creator
mr skin not only takes a clip of the nudity and SELLS access to it without the permission of the creator. He puts those images in banners as well.
your insanely stupid arguement is that mr skin is not porn so his actions are ok, but brazzers actions are porn so the fair use protection doesn't apply anymore.
|
The critical difference isn't that one case involves porn and one case (Mr Skin) does not involve porn, although that is also the situation. The difference is that for Mr. Skin one can credibly argue that he actually creates something of value using the snippets of content he compiles from various sources, by adding context and commentary, writing and an opinion, and therefore that could be argued to be a fair use. In contrast some random porn site, or porn affiliate program taking liberty to someone else's images or videos and selling access to them or using them without permission to build a business around is clearly just case of someone monetizing the fruits of someone's else's labor to make money without investing in their own content and simultaneously to put the other company out of business. It's unfair and illegal. I don't have a problem with a legitamite fair use, like snippets used in a parody or a documentary or a site that adds significant commentary like a review site or the many other cases that have commonly been classified as a fair use. It just so happens that this kind of thing never or rarely happens with adult content. These tube sites and these gf sites using various stuff they collect isn't a legitimate fair use. If you care so much about fair use Gideon you should appreciate the difference.