Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
i love how you use truncation to make a bogus point
directly from your own quote
there is no way 30 second clip of a song chorus is going to supersede the objects of the original work
the fact that they don't licience it for use in porn videos at all means there is no diminishing the profits
so that leaves prejudice the sale.
|
The fact that they don't lic is why it's copyright infringement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
the 2 live crew case is on point (although for a different fair use) because of the two distinct markets issue.
|
The 2 live crew work was a parody and was something newly created from the actual work. "2 Live Crew's use of copyrighted material was protected under the fair use doctrine, as a parody, even though it was released commercially."
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
there is precedent on their side
|
About 100 different court cases and the supreme court say otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
the context of the use (fucking in a club without club music would not make sense)
the shortness of the sample (you might want to look up the definition of sample btw)
and non competitive nature of the different markets does give them a shot.
|
You might want to look what the courts consider sampling as... here let me help "In music, sampling is the act of taking a portion, or sample, of one sound recording and reusing it as an instrument or a different sound recording of a song."
Notice, it's not the original.
The competitive nature is an aspect of "damages" not copyrights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
or the club paid for a promotional use licience (as with clubs that show dance club in their commercials/promo shows)
|
Correct, the club... you can not record the music you hear outside and sell/profit from it. You didn't lic the music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
case on point for sampling btw
http://www.eff.org/cases/lenz-v-universal
they would have to combine it with the distinct market ruling previously mentioned to get fair use authorization for the commercial nature of the work.
|
I wasn't aware she was profiting from the video or that it had a commercial aspect... probably why it's fair use.
However if she was selling this, and as a bonus using the name of the song to promote it, it would be copyright infringement.