|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 04 2012 @ 01:41 PM EDT |
Fair use is an equitable defense. It's an exception to
copyright protection. And it's only relevant if I actually
did copy.
An example is a parody. Parody is a subset of "fair use" of
otherwise copyrighted material.
Let's say I make a funny video that's my original creation -
I didn't base it on anyone else's work. "Fair use" doesn't
apply. Now let's say I make a funny video that parodies an
existing video (for example, the T-Mobile Girl ads). I
can't claim I didn't crib a bunch of my material from them -
I did. I have used their copyrighted material, and used it
without permission. Full stop.
This is where fair use comes in. I did copy, but my copying
is protected by the fair use doctrine. Parody is an
exception to copyright protection. It mean my copying is
allowed, even without a license/permission. It does NOT
mean that parody isn't copying, or that the original source
material wasn't copyrighted. It just means I'm allowed to
use the copyrighted material in this specific way.
If my video was original and DIDN'T use copyrighted
material, "fair use" doesn't even come into play.
And that's the way the jury quesitonaire reads. The early
question is "did Google copy?" Then later, if Google did
copy, was Google's copying permissible under each of several
legal doctrines?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
