By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
noname2200 on 17 November 2008
Edit Thread
ssj12 said:
shouldnt PETA be sued over this?

 

Likely not, under U.S. law.

 

"The following is a list of factors to be considered in determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a "fair use":

• 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
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyright work

The four factors are not meant to be exclusive and must be explored together, and not in isolation, in light of the purpose of the copyright laws. The statute does not indicate how much weight is to be accorded each factor, but the courts have generally placed the most emphasis on the last factor, the effect of the use upon the potential market for the copyrighted work or its value, while the nature of the copyrighted work has been said to be the least important and most unclear of the four factors enumerated.

To the extent that the copying damages a work's marketability by parodying it or criticizing it, the fair-use finding is unaffected.Rather, the effect on the market factor is concerned with secondary uses that, by offering a substitute for the original, usurp a market that properly belongs to the copyright holder.


Cases:

For purposes of the fair use defense to a claim of copyright infringement, the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work is a factor which requires the court to consider the extent of market harm caused by the particular actions of the alleged infringer, as well as whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by the defendant would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market' for the original. Burnett v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 491 F. Supp. 2d 962 (C.D. Cal. 2007).