Gaming Blog Rails Against The Man, Succumbs to Legal Threats
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
How am I wrong? The applicable law in a case of claimed copyright infringement is never the law of the place where the alleged infringing conduct occurred. It is always the law of either the place where the copyright owner is located (if the claim is one of common law copyright) or where the copyright was issued (if the claim is one of statutory copyright law). I think, given the relevant facts of this case, the irrelevancy of any law other than that of the United States is a little more than merely a "claim."GrandmaFunk said:
There is a marketing benefit to the publisher in eking out promotional materials to the media on an exclusive basis. While it inherently reduces the extent of exposure, it potentially increases the effectiveness of the exposure by ensuring that whatever exposure is obtained isn't lost in the crowd. It's kinda like the difference between a shotgun blast and a single bullet. There's greater chance of hitting the prey with the shotgun blast but there's also greater chance of actually killing it with the single bullet. And, of course, the media outlet blessed with the publisher's exclusive grant benefits from the exclusiveness, being the only one with the promotional material. It can make good business sense for all involved.numbersix1979 said:
Not trying to be a smart ass here, but I really don't see how. He gave them ample credit for it, he didn't make money off it or anything of that nature...Yeah, removing the watermark was a dick move, but does it really count as ripping them off?JDKJ said:
It's a close call. Giving credit to the rightful owner doesn't make it a fair use. In fact, giving credit to the rightful owner isn't even one of the factors considered in a fair use analysis. What does tend to suggest a conclusion that it isn't a fair use is the fact that it is a commercial use (i.e., he is indirectly making money off his unauthorized use of the screen shot). If you visit the site, you'll see that it hosts third-party advertising which I assume the site owner is somehow getting paid for hosting. At least, it doesn't look like he's hosting it for free. If he is getting paid for the advertising he's hosting, then any content he posts to the site, including the screen shot at issue, is driving traffic to his site and benefiting him and his advertisers. In that way, he does make money off the screen shot. And making money off the copyrighted works of another suggests that it isn't a fair use but, rather, is an infringing use.LightPurpleLighter said:
There's also the fact that by using what is a screen shot that the owner has exclusive rights to use, he's substantially undermining the value of those exclusive rights. The value of the exclusiveness is that only the owner has the ability to use the work. If everyone else uses the work, then it's no longer exclusive and whatever value there might have been in exclusive use goes down the drain. This also suggests that the use of the screen shot is not a fair use because another of the factors considered in a fair use analysis is whether or not the secondary use devalues the original work. It this case, I think it does significantly devalue the original work by destroying its exclusiveness.
But as I said, it is a close call. Personally, I'd call it as a rip-off. But I could be wrong. It's not exactly a clear-cut case. There's some room in which to call it a fair use.
If he uses the pictures in a commentary it should fall under free use, why don't people exercise their free use rights anymore? It's like they don't realize they have them
Because it's not that simple. It takes more than mere use in commentary to create a fair use. For example, if I run an internet blog as a music critic and I'm commenting on the latest single released by Band X, do I get to post a mp3 of that single to my blog for my readers to download without Band X's authorization and then claim that I've made a fair use? I don't think so. That's not a fair use. That's copyright infringement.danpascooch said: