RSS
How 'Playing It Safe' Cripples Fair Use
from the limping-layer-of-pointlessness dept
This is about how over-budgeted media productions historically paid to license things they didn’t need to license, just because they had tons of money and their lawyers preferred to “play it safe” rather than claim Fair Use, which is how Fair Use became the weak pathetic limping layer of pointlessness it is today.
…and this is what inevitably happens when you regularly pay people not to punch you...
...and this is why "playing it safe" compounds the problem.
I have a business...
To Understand The Data Move It Closer
The Talent Wars: Today's Toughest Startup Challenge
I’m looking for research...
Apps, Platforms, Consumer Use
Geography Of The App Economy
I have an idea...
From Noodles And Hot Sauce To Funding In 9 Weeks, With Oomf Founder Mikael Cho
75 Questions To Help You Write An RFP For Website Design
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
More Nina?
(Prepare for Nina bashing in 3... 2... 1...)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Fighting the Fear of Fair Use
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: More Nina?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: More Nina?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: More Nina?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fighting the Fear of Fair Use
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Fair Use never lived to be killed off.
Fair Use is made up of guidelines and are not law. In order to determine Fair Use, a civil matter is required. What looks to be "blatant" is far from the truth.
Have you actually read the guidelines of Fair Use, Nina? Here's your chance:
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. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work
Now, I take your works, Sita Sings the Blues, and write up a blog on talking about it and I use the whole movie. You, of course, will allow it to pass (providing my website isn't generating money, right?).
I take a different movie, let's use a Disney one because they're asshats, and all of a sudden, I'm being sued.
Why? Because Fair Use isn't a law. It's a guideline. A judge, not you, not Disney, and certainly not me, is going to have to sit and listen to both sides plead their case before making a decision on each and every single civil dispute because Disney is a company run by asshats.
I still find it ironic someone infringed on Patry's works to include it in a law which is to counter it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fair Use never lived to be killed off.
actually, i don't think she cares on that either way
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Fair Use never lived to be killed off.
In law, the concept of 'Fair Use' is nebulous. It is not clearly defined, and therefore can be a dangerous defense to raise if sued. For this reason, a good lawyer (whose primary motivation is to legally protect his or her client) will recommend licensing material that could potentially have been used under Fair Use. It's safer to license than not and risk a lawsuit from a mega-corp with very deep pockets.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Fair Use never lived to be killed off.
Things have changed. A lot.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment