Quote:
Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear
lol @ gideon trying to back peddle. you are right gideon , everyone is wrong except you. harvard law is wrong the supreme court is wrong . wikipedia is obviously totally wrong. Every argument you make is an extrapolation you think up in your head.. changing a subtitle does not make it fair use because one guy won a case on his particular facts.
PAY CLOSE ATTENTION
Common misunderstandings of fair use.
Fair use interpretations, once made, are static forever(MYTH).
Fair use is decided on a case by case basis, on the entirety of circumstances.
what part of that do you not understand.
|
and what exactly about taking a statement out of context do you not understand
direct quote from wikipedia
Fair use is decided on a case by case basis, on the entirety of circumstances. The same act done by different means or for a different purpose can gain or lose fair use status. Even repeating an identical act at a different point in time can make a difference due to changing social, technological, or other surrounding circumstances
See section Amount and substantiality ('sampling') and others above for
cited examples of changing standards
those examples are
The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use. Yet see Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios for a case in which substantial copying?
entire programs for private viewing?was upheld as fair use. Likewise, see Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, where the Ninth Circuit held that copying an
entire photo to use as a
thumbnail in online search results did not weigh against fair use, "if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use."
the way you read the summary could mean two things
your misrepresenting the context of the message.
to mean that fair use disappears and reappears willy nilly when you look at the referenced proof it clear that it is talking about scope change. Which is 100% consistant with what i am saying (the supported extension of old fair use right to the new technology so we can get the extra benefits of that technology)
wikipedia is not wrong, a moron who misrepresents what wiki is actually saying is wrong.