4 ms·

That matters in practice because you're less likely to stir up the ire of IP holders, but legally, the lack of commercialization of infringing work doesn't mean

That matters in practice because you're less likely to stir up the ire of IP holders, but legally, the lack of commercialization of infringing work doesn't mean much.

dctoedt 8y ago
> legally, the lack of commercialization of infringing work doesn't mean much. That's not correct — according to the Copyright Act's fair-use provision, the purpose of an infringing use, including whether it's commercial or for nonprofit- or educational purposes, is the first-listed of four factors to consider in determining whether the infringing use is "fair." The Supreme Court discussed this in the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case. In that case, the owner of the copyright in the Roy Orbison classic Oh, Pretty Woman had sued 2 Live Crew for their down-and-dirty parody of the song. The Court held that the parody was fair use, even though it was commercial, largely because the parody was "transformative." [0] [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html#FNSRC9 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html#FNSRC...