Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDoc
The fact that they don't lic is why it's copyright infringement.
|
you do realize that no fair use is licienced.
by that stupid definition all fair use is a copyright infringement since it is not licienced
the very nature of fair use is that it is without any need to get permission from the copyright holder
Quote:
|
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."
|
which is why i said
Quote:
|
the 2 live crew case is on point (although for a different fair use) because of the two distinct markets issue.
|
your trying to argue that only parody is allowed to be released commercially because that all this ruling allowed, well that bullshit
this ruling states that commercial does not automagically make it infringing
commentary has already been extended to this as well (ask micheal moore)
RK would be making the arguement sampling would also be so extended.
Quote:
|
About 100 different court cases and the supreme court say otherwise.
|
really care to provide the links.
your making arguements that sampling is only fair use because the uploader didn't profit from it.
Quote:
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.
Correct, the club... you can not record the music you hear outside and sell/profit from it. You didn't lic the music.
|
good thing we are talking about video and not music
you were the person trying to argue that hitler parodies were only valid because they were a sample and not the entire movie.
RK is not selling the entire song, just a small piece
they are not even selling the song they are selling the porn, which just happens to include just enough of the song to establish the premise of the porn video (sex in a club)
Quote:
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.
|
wow i can't believe your trying to make the if it commercial it can't be fair use arguement again
sony made money from selling vcrs
2live crew mad money selling their song
micheal moore makes money selling his commentaries
profit doesn't automatically invalidate fair use
profit that cost copyright holder the profits from the direct liciencing of the work ...
which is why i said
Quote:
|
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.
|