@ironcondor21 Like @gorillapaws, I am not a lawyer. But the answer he gave you regarding US law is correct. Furthermore, similar laws (called “fair dealing laws”) exist in the UK and most member states of the Commonwealth of Nations. So if you live in any such place, you are likely protected by some version of the fair use doctrine.
You are also unlikely to be targeted so long as you are using these clips in ways that are clearly fair use. But there is no guarantee. Luckily, take down requests are the first step in any legitimate copyright claim. If the fight isn’t worth it, you can always just wait and see if you get any take down requests. If you comply with the first request, that should be the end of it.
@give_seek “Making money off of someone else’s work is illegal”
This is false, and one of the most pervasive myths about intellectual property law. There are both commercial and non-commercial applications of the fair use doctrine.
Several factors that must be taken into consideration when determining whether or not something falls under the fair use doctrine:
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.
As determined by the US Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (1994), however, none of these factors is dispositive. That is to say, all four are supposed to be balanced. That a work is reused for commercial purposes does not immediately mean it is not a fair use. Similar decisions have been reached in most of the Western world, though one of the more recent EU directives may potentially undermine parts of this fair use tradition for states under its jurisdiction.
In the Campbell case, for instance, it was noted that to say otherwise is to outlaw virtually all commercial parodies. The same reasoning goes for reviews that use brief clips for illustrative purposes. Crucially, neither of these activities substantially affects the potential market for the original in virtue of its use of copyrighted material. A review may substantially affect the potential market for the original if the reviewer is influential and gives the original a bad review, but that is a separate issue and is covered in the US by the First Amendment and in other countries by their various laws governing free speech.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
