4 ms·

The person filming it is not violating copyright in any way that would hold up in court. They are not cutting into the market for Blank Space. People aren't goi

The person filming it is not violating copyright in any way that would hold up in court. They are not cutting into the market for Blank Space. People aren't going to watch the video so they don't have to pay Taylor Swift. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#4._Effect_upon_work's_value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#4._Effect_upon_work's... ("courts consider whether the use in question acts as a direct market substitute for the original work.") The only thing it is doing is creating a false positive in YouTube's copyright protection algorithm.

mcguire 5y ago
I would expect the courts to also object to using copyright law to suppress other legal rights. But yeah, YouTube's policies and mechanisms don't care about the fine points of law.
scotuswroteus 5y ago
Lol, I'm pretty sure a Court would have difficult time finding that the "purpose" of the cop's use here is one that the fair use doctrine was codified to protect
- robbrown451 5y ago
  Lol, it doesn't work that way. The copyright owner has to show harm. "The burden of proof here rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#3._Amount_and_substantiality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#3._Amount_and_substan... Basically, the record company would have to make the case that because this cop played the song, they are losing sales because I guess people are listening to this instead. And not on YouTube, in person, because the person posting it on YouTube would be the one responsible for that. These arguments are utterly absurd.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    You keep implying the fair use factors are evaluated separately. They're balanced together. And the other 3 factors are against the officer.
    - robbrown451 5y ago
      You're wrong. I assure you, I know this stuff. If the owner can't demonstrate harm, they have no case. "The other three factors" don't cause harm to the owner, so they have no case. You can't successfully bring a tort case (which copyright infringement is) if you can't demonstrate harm.
      - otterley 5y ago
        > I assure you, I know this stuff Where did you go to law school, exactly? Copyright infringement is not tort. Copyright infringement is a creature of federal law, not common law like tort is. And copyright owners can claim statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work in lieu of actual damages at their election. See 17 U.S. 504(c). And fair use is a defense to a prima facie copyright infringement claim.
        pseudalopex 5y ago
        Copyright infringement is a statutory tort. But you're right the law makes the infringement itself a violation. And fair use is just a defense.

mcguire 5y ago

I would expect the courts to also object to using copyright law to suppress other legal rights. But yeah, YouTube's policies and mechanisms don't care about the fine points of law.

scotuswroteus 5y ago

Lol, I'm pretty sure a Court would have difficult time finding that the "purpose" of the cop's use here is one that the fair use doctrine was codified to protect

robbrown451 5y ago
Lol, it doesn't work that way. The copyright owner has to show harm. "The burden of proof here rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#3._Amount_and_substantiality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#3._Amount_and_substan... Basically, the record company would have to make the case that because this cop played the song, they are losing sales because I guess people are listening to this instead. And not on YouTube, in person, because the person posting it on YouTube would be the one responsible for that. These arguments are utterly absurd.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  You keep implying the fair use factors are evaluated separately. They're balanced together. And the other 3 factors are against the officer.
  - robbrown451 5y ago
    You're wrong. I assure you, I know this stuff. If the owner can't demonstrate harm, they have no case. "The other three factors" don't cause harm to the owner, so they have no case. You can't successfully bring a tort case (which copyright infringement is) if you can't demonstrate harm.
    - otterley 5y ago
      > I assure you, I know this stuff Where did you go to law school, exactly? Copyright infringement is not tort. Copyright infringement is a creature of federal law, not common law like tort is. And copyright owners can claim statutory damages of up to $150,000 per work in lieu of actual damages at their election. See 17 U.S. 504(c). And fair use is a defense to a prima facie copyright infringement claim.
      - pseudalopex 5y ago
        Copyright infringement is a statutory tort. But you're right the law makes the infringement itself a violation. And fair use is just a defense.