Quote:
Originally Posted by acidzebra
Steve, the case in point was a 29-second video of a toddler dancing to Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" uploaded by a mother to YouTube. I don't see how that is not fair use, which by the way, seems pretty well defined in the US - although you are right that this is not a global arrangement, but then again, neither is copyright.
What is happening now is that content owners (again, as distinct from content creators in most cases) go after people with automated & rubber-stamped takedown notices under the DMCA. See also " why my printer received a DMCA takedown notice". I hope that cases like this will put an end to that practice. |
Okay, I'm not arguing Prince's case (I realize that may be how it sounded)... I'm merely saying that this is a legal dodge, in fact more useful to the legal system than to defendants. This will merely require lawyers to present additional pre-prepared evidence of why they consider the case in or outside of "fair use"... which they will do, and to compensate them for all that new work they will make more money from their clients on both sides of the bench.
Sure, some claimants will think first before suing someone, but if they find a lawyer who says he has the "fair use" documents covered, we'll see more drawn-out trials and more legaleze. I just don't expect there to be much difference from what we have now.