Quote:
Originally Posted by DonovanTrent
I can summarize even briefer than you can:
You're defending using stolen content for commercial purposes that are NOT protected under "fair use."
|
ok lets talk about this one case, the ad using a picture of raven riley and calling her a different name.
Quote:
- The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
- The nature of the copyrighted work
- The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
- The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
|
the beta max case shows that 4th one is the only one that is really important since sony made 1k per machine, the entire show was copied with no changes (2, 3) but it caused no directly recognized income damage. there was no lost sale.
So exactly who does taking one picture, putting it in an ad branding a completely different name cost tom a single sale.
As i pointed out with the natalie example the disgruntal users are going to go to google and search for natalie from exgirlfriendfootage.com to find her content when they don't find it in the site (after it has been dcma away)
So exactly how does it change the value of the copyrighted work, how does it cost a sale.