> Unfortunately only a judge or jury ultimately gets to decide what's > fair use, which means the person without the in house legal team is at > the mercy of the person with legal resources regardless of who's right > and who's wrong. Follow Steve's links above for the nitty gritty. This > seems like an open and shut case of fair use to me, but I'm on the > wayyyyyyy media hacky lefto archist side of that issue so my > interpretation isn't what would necessarily hold up in court. In my > world, unless someone's pirating (making money off of a copy of > something as if you are the producer / selling something as if its the > real thing when its not) or non-satirically making it look like you > endorse something when you don't (which is libel so doesn't even fall > under this umbrella anyway), the use should not only be protected, but > get a little "Upholder of Free Speech" gold star. The Fair Use > exception can be interpreted to be pretty close to that (minus the > gold star of course) - unfortunately, it can be interpreted in the > reverse direction too, depending on which of the evaluative factors > listed in the law is weighted more heavily by those making the > judgment. The DMCA muddies the waters further.
co lte me ask a question because I get confused about the responsibilities of a video hosting service. Let's say you use a host that will actually talk to you, like blip. You post what you think is a parody of someone else's work. They send blip a takedown notice. Can blip look at the video and say, "naw, we think this is fair use. sorry". can they stand up to the person asking for the video's removal? All the stories I hear make it seem like the video hosts' have no choice but to take down any video that is someone asks. Jay -- http://jaydedman.com 917 371 6790 Video: http://ryanishungry.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/jaydedman Photos: http://flickr.com/photos/jaydedman/ RSS: http://tinyurl.com/yqgdt9
