It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: AboveBoard
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a 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; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
The whole thing seems pretty gray to me beyond what I bolded above.
originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: AboveBoard
So, does this also include Kek? A totally distinct entity from Pepe.
Can a Meme Be Considered a Fair Use Image?
We’ve previously discussed the fair use doctrine as it applies to posting copyrighted images, and how the doctrine can be used as a defense against allegations of copyright infringement.
As we know, only a copyright holder has the exclusive rights to a creative work, and only they can grant a person a license to use their image or work. This exchange often involves an exchange of money, like Getty’s licensing rights calculator was designed to show.
However, the fair use doctrine does make some exceptions if it can be shown that a potential infringer’s use of the image serves the public good by meeting certain exceptions.
The fair use doctrine is outlined by U.S. copyright laws, and the Copyright Office has created a Fair Use Index of the overwhelming case law on the subject.
Courts tend to measure fair use by these four prongs outlined in § 107 of the Copyright Act: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
It’s been widely held that the first prong of fair use will be satisfied if you’re using the image for purposes of commentary, criticism, reporting, or teaching.
In addition, the Supreme Court has unequivocally held that a parody and or a satire may qualify as a fair use image under the Copyright Act since it’s a commentary on an original work.
Parody and Satire for Fair Use Images
In a landmark decision involving parody, satire, and fair use, the Supreme Court set out to define parody and its importance when dealing with fair use. According to the Court, a parody is the “use of some elements of a prior author’s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author’s works.”
Like other forms of comment or criticism, parody can provide a social benefit, “by shedding light on an earlier work, and, in the process, creating a new one.”
originally posted by: Xcalibur254
I find it amazing how so many on this site act like this artist has no right or grounds to defend his IP from being co-opted by a group he doesn't agree with. I thought the Right were all about protection of property rights.
originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: AboveBoard
I hope Nicki Minaj and Katy Perry are sued out of existence - they both shared Pepe images on social media. Then again, they are both retard poster children so they will get a free pass. Only conservatives and Nazis are not allowed to post kek.
Anyway, creative commons (not a legally binding entity) dictates that the image can be shared and modified at will.
I hope Matt Furie gets ZERO money and is tied up in court attempting to sue certain folks whilst ignoring others.
He needs to deal with it, the tool that he is.