Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thinkx
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair; such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Its commercial, copyrighted and a substantial part of the site, that would be good enough for me to sue.
|
As I see it and they also said its "review" and same guidelines as Ebert & Roeper.
Then those four factors are only to be used to help determine. Still though if you apply same concept as Ebert & Roeper to them you get same results.
They rebroadcast clips of movies to millions of households.
Their show is for comercial reasons. They do sell advertising and cable companies or chanels do pay to have the show.
They are rebroadcasting copyrighted material and their show itself is copyrighted.
Their reviews/clips are a substantial part of the show.
They have the effect of causing viewers to purchase tickets, dvd's, and so on.