Angry Game Dev Sues Jim Sterling for $10 MILLION

[Dr.Henry_Killinger]

elektranine said:

Dr.Henry_Killinger said:

Neither do you apparently. 

a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose - See more at: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/#sthash.IU88F0as.dpuf

If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work — for instance, writing a book review — fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes

Copyright Claims(Temporary) do not equal Copyright Takedowns(Permanent), the takedown is when said claim is succesful because of a violated copyright.

Playing a videogame alone is transformative, commenting/critiquing it is clear fair use.

What you linked to is not from a law library and is from a regular library resource. In fact it is somebody's blog posting. Not the most credible source of information on legal definitions. A law library would be mufh better.

 

And thanks for pointing out Jim Sterling's non-fair use of their copyrighted work. The video he created was not a critic of the game. Nor was the video created to satire/parody the game. He created the video specifically to financially enrich Jim Sterling through ad revenue. That goes outside the bounds of fair use. You have to understand that his video was not a review in any way.

A blog post by an attorney (which you claim to be), on Stanford official library domain. It's a lot more credible then someone on the internet who isn't verified and isn't backed by a university.

Furthermore, before you claim that the video is not a critique/review you need to proof it, the burden of proof is on you. 

It doesn't matter if the video has ad revenue, that's a nonsequitor and isn't related to fair use in any way. Newsflash, parody or critque doesn't stop becoming parody or critique if you make money off of it. If this is your sole piece of evidence, go back to the drawing board.