Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

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.