Isn't it largely the other way around, the accused would need to show that they have some suitable license or successfully argue that the have fair-use grounds

Isn't it largely the other way around, the accused would need to show that they have some suitable license or successfully argue that the have fair-use grounds (the latter sounds unlikely in this case to me)? Maybe it's a distinction without a difference in civil matters, since there's not really a presumption of guilt or innocence AFAIK in civil.