4 ms·
Other people are visible and audible in the video. He could have used the same tactic if they weren't. But that has nothing to do with the facts of this case.
by pseudalopex 5y ago
Other people are visible and audible in the video. He could have used the same tactic if they weren't. But that has nothing to do with the facts of this case.
What you quoted just establishes market effect is an element of fair use again. It doesn't establish market effect overrides the other elements. The source also says "In addition to the above, other factors may also be considered by a court in weighing a fair use question, depending upon the circumstances. Courts evaluate fair use claims on a case-by-case basis, and the outcome of any given case depends on a fact-specific inquiry."
I've consulted attorneys about fair use before. And I've read cases where courts ruled for the plaintiffs despite negligible market effect if any.
There could be relevant case law I don't know of course. But you would have cited it if you knew it already.
I doubt the copyright holder will sue. But that's a different question. And it isn't hard to imagine an artist not wanting their songs associated with police misconduct. Actually it isn't hard to imagine them being concerned about people not wanting to listen to their songs if it became widespread.
- robbrown451 5y agoThis discusses the concept a bit. This UK case was a bit different because it wasn't just a few seconds of a song, it was continued over the course of years, and customers of the business could hear it, etc. Regardless, it is bizarre to me that anyone here thinks it would be reasonable to pursue this. From the article (which says exactly what I'm saying): "The repair firm, Kwik-Fit, has a pretty weak response, saying that it's banned personal radios for ten years. Instead, it should be fighting back on the idea that this is a public performance in any way. Otherwise, you get into all sorts of trouble. If you have the windows open in your home and are listening to your legally owned music (or your TV!) and your neighbor can hear it, is that a public performance? What if you live in an apartment building with thin walls? What about when you're driving with the radio on and the windows open? What if you're in your cubicle and the folks in the cubicles around you can hear the music? At which point do we realize how silly this becomes? It's difficult to see how, with a straight face, anyone in the music industry can claim that any of these situations represents harm done to them."
- pseudalopex 5y agoYou mean this TechDirt article?[1] It's advocacy. Not legal scholarship. Their hypotheticals don't fit this case. And some of them are settled questions in the US. Courts consider intent all the time. Fair use factors include purpose and character. 17 USC 110 has an exception for receiving broadcasts. Columbia Pictures v. Professional Real Estate said hotel rooms are private. Apartments are at least as private. And driving means not staying in the same place for long usually. It wasn't a few seconds. The recording shows the officer played over 2 minutes of the song. It ends with the song still playing. Kwik-Fit settled out of court apparently.[2] [1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071005/094552.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071005/094552.shtml [2] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/be-kwik-its-time-for-a-tune-up-1664425 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/be-kwik-its-time-fo...