3 ms·

I am just curious not an opinion, if OpenAI is not making money, does it still count as fair use? We do remember many songs that we have not paid for. As long a

by nblgbg 3y ago

I am just curious not an opinion, if OpenAI is not making money, does it still count as fair use? We do remember many songs that we have not paid for. As long as I am not trying to make money, does the logic of fair use hold?

judge2020 3y ago
There is this[0] from the USC, but Fair Use is a complex topic that requires every aspect of the statute be considered. For example, tons of YouTubers make a lot of money based on Fair Use, such as (good) react channels who actually criticise/review/add transformative content to their reviews that show a lot of the original work, sometimes even a substantial/full portion of the original work. But it's also not fair use to just disable ads on a video/make nothing from it, and show the full original content/movie with just a video of you eating popcorn under the movie. Any claim of Fair Use ultimately has to be decided by a judge/jury. 0: (1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
creer 3y ago
Nothing in "fair use" is about the new work making money or not. You can write criticism or commentary that includes bits of the original work and make money selling that new work. You can't give a free concert and argue that it being free makes that music performance fair use.
- p_j_w 3y ago
  >Nothing in "fair use" is about the new work making money or not. This is completely wrong, at least in the US. It is explicitly laid out in the law that whether the new work is commercial vs. not for profit/educational is one of four factors to consider in deciding whether or not it's fair use.
  - creer 3y ago
    Yes and no. There is a distinction between "making money" and "commercial". But even then it's pretty slim in the law. For once the US law is short and compact. (Keeping in mind that in the US much of the law is in regulations and how the law has been used in earlier cases - still usually the law is not short...) Here it is: - ---------- 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. - ------------ In the US, plenty of criticism is done as part of a job, an enterprise to make money, a business. Same for news reporting, same for teaching, etc. The new work makes money - at least as part of an overall activity - or it doesn't exist. So after that it's up to the court to interpret "commercial nature" within the previous list of activities that are mostly professional. Anyway: You'll have a better time is you can claim "nonprofit educational" - even if you make money by selling the new work. You can make money selling the new work, and still operate a nonprofit, non-commercial legal entity.
    - p_j_w 3y ago
      >plenty of criticism is done as part of a job, an enterprise to make money, a business So what? The profit driven nature is still a factor in whether or not something is fair use. Just because it's not make or break doesn't mean you can say "Nothing in "fair use" is about the new work making money or not." There's more nuance to it than that.

by nblgbg 3y ago

judge2020 3y ago

There is this[0] from the USC, but Fair Use is a complex topic that requires every aspect of the statute be considered. For example, tons of YouTubers make a lot of money based on Fair Use, such as (good) react channels who actually criticise/review/add transformative content to their reviews that show a lot of the original work, sometimes even a substantial/full portion of the original work. But it's also not fair use to just disable ads on a video/make nothing from it, and show the full original content/movie with just a video of you eating popcorn under the movie. Any claim of Fair Use ultimately has to be decided by a judge/jury. 0: (1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

creer 3y ago

Nothing in "fair use" is about the new work making money or not. You can write criticism or commentary that includes bits of the original work and make money selling that new work. You can't give a free concert and argue that it being free makes that music performance fair use.

p_j_w 3y ago
>Nothing in "fair use" is about the new work making money or not. This is completely wrong, at least in the US. It is explicitly laid out in the law that whether the new work is commercial vs. not for profit/educational is one of four factors to consider in deciding whether or not it's fair use.
- creer 3y ago
  Yes and no. There is a distinction between "making money" and "commercial". But even then it's pretty slim in the law. For once the US law is short and compact. (Keeping in mind that in the US much of the law is in regulations and how the law has been used in earlier cases - still usually the law is not short...) Here it is: - ---------- 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. - ------------ In the US, plenty of criticism is done as part of a job, an enterprise to make money, a business. Same for news reporting, same for teaching, etc. The new work makes money - at least as part of an overall activity - or it doesn't exist. So after that it's up to the court to interpret "commercial nature" within the previous list of activities that are mostly professional. Anyway: You'll have a better time is you can claim "nonprofit educational" - even if you make money by selling the new work. You can make money selling the new work, and still operate a nonprofit, non-commercial legal entity.
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    >plenty of criticism is done as part of a job, an enterprise to make money, a business So what? The profit driven nature is still a factor in whether or not something is fair use. Just because it's not make or break doesn't mean you can say "Nothing in "fair use" is about the new work making money or not." There's more nuance to it than that.