3 ms·
mcmansionhell's use is clearly fair use as it falls under both the criticism and parody exceptions. This might be why the Zillow SLAPP letter mainly focuses on
by droithomme 9y ago
mcmansionhell's use is clearly fair use as it falls under both the criticism and parody exceptions. This might be why the Zillow SLAPP letter mainly focuses on supposed TOS violations. Whether unsigned web site TOS off on a page most visitors never see are enforceable at all is highly questionable.
- amyjess 9y agoBut you can also make the argument that it's only fair use if you're using the photos to criticize and parody Zillow or the services they provide. She's not criticizing Zillow or its services but rather the subjects of the photographs.
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoThat's an interesting construction of the Fair Use terms that to me, IANAL, seems entirely wrong; but interesting. Like you could stop someone using your image in a parody because you took the picture of your tie and they instead parodied your suit wearing. Doesn't work, the image stands by itself, the supposed purpose of the image is irrelevant to the copyright ... or am I wrong? If I take a picture from Zillow's site and use it to teach a class about poor framing (ie photography technique) then the exception for educational use still stands.
- droithomme 9y agoYeah I do agree. However amyjess reasonably brings up an important aspect of this case. SCOTUS has distinguished between satire and parody. If this goes to court it is likely Zillow will claim this is satire and not parody since parody claims of copyright exception have a long history of vigorous acceptance. However this all relies on an interpretation that only photographic composition and metaissues are acceptable criticism targets and the actual subject of the photo is somehow not related to the content. That is a novel argument and unlikely to prevail should this be adjudicated.