> 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 pu

> 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...