2 ms·
TL;DR: Taken together, the factors favor fair use. Moreover, the video furthers the purposes of copyright. It serves the public interest by advancing political
by guiambros 13y ago
TL;DR: Taken together, the factors favor fair use. Moreover, the video furthers the purposes of copyright. It serves the public interest by advancing political criticism and debate regarding sexist stereotypes about girls and engineering. What is more, it’s a classic example of growing the cultural commons by remaking existing cultural works to create new insights and expression. That kind of creativity what fair use is for. And it’s part of what made the Beastie Boys great.
On the merits, then, the fair use analysis is solid. But expect to hear this counterargument: that one of the most basic “copyrights” is the right to control how your work is used—including whether it is used at all. Proponents of this kind of claim will often invoke J.D. Salinger’s steadfast opposition to any adaptions of his works. But the argument forgets that every copyright set out in the Copyright Act is subject to numerous exceptions – including fair use. Copyright ≠ total control.
- neumann 13y agoThat first paragraph highlights the problem with the EFF's analysis. It is not in 'the public interest by advancing political criticism' if at the end you try and sell you shitty toy. I would buy the argument it if it was broadcast as a non-profit campaign and at the end a shot 'sponsored by', but this is a commercial plain and simple.