2 ms·
Your definition is legal, sure, but their definition is realistic. The overwhelming vast majority of copyright "infringement" is ignored, because who cares if a
by Tadpole9181 3y ago
Your definition is legal, sure, but their definition is realistic. The overwhelming vast majority of copyright "infringement" is ignored, because who cares if a kid draws Pikachu? That's why copyright law is very vague and relies on context-specific judgements of severity of infringement on multiple categories.
- monocasa 3y ago> Your definition is legal, sure, but their definition is realistic. ...it's an entirely legal term. It has no definition outside of its legal one if you're trying to figure out how litigation would work. > The overwhelming vast majority of copyright "infringement" is ignored, because who cares if a kid draws Pikachu? That's why copyright law is very vague and relies on context-specific judgements of severity of infringement on multiple categories. There's a different argument made in that case if it hits the courts than the original poster's argument: de minimis. Basically that the claimed damage is too trivial to waste the court's time. It's not clear that automation at just about any scale will allow for a de minimis defense.