3 ms·
I don't know that this is infringement -- at the very least, it's arguable that the use of the image is transformative (e.g. it's being used in a montage of cri
by rsingel 13y ago
I don't know that this is infringement -- at the very least, it's arguable that the use of the image is transformative (e.g. it's being used in a montage of criticism).
Just because something is used commercially doesn't make it non-fair use. That's just part of a 4 part test that courts apply: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/
Copyright is intended to make sure creators have incentives to create. Fair use is intended to keep culture vibrant.
- k-mcgrady 13y agoI'm just guessing but I'd assume fair use laws are different in every country. If for example the content creator was based in the UK and the potential infringer was based in the US (and the content was digital and online) which countries fair use laws would apply?
- k3oni 13y agoI agree but also credit should be given where credit is due.
- rsingel 13y agoThat's an ethical, not legal argument. (Unless we're talking about CC-licensed images requiring attribution.)
- jere 13y agoThe part I'm wondering about is that this is a project about criticizing the depiction of women in video games. In the piece we're discussing, however, it's not from a video game. It's a fan art piece tributing a video game. In any case, I'm disappointed in Sarkeesian for not even responding to the artist.
- DanielStraight 13y agoAccording to that site, the transformative factor pertains to transformation which adds to the original work. Nothing is being said about the original work in this case. In fact, the original work is not even being acknowledge as an original work. It is being used simply to invoke the character of which it is fan art. I don't see any way to construe that as "value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings" where "the original" is Ms. Smith's fan art image.
- ZeroGravitas 13y agoI assumed it was chosen because it looks like a "cheesecake" (is that the right word?) pinup, not simply to invoke the character.
- ZeroGravitas 13y agoI'm assuming they didn't ask for permission for any of the other uses, which seem, at first glance, to be official promo images. And somehow, I don't feel that they should have to.
- deletes 13y agoIt feels like the author is personally offended, and is using the blog to stir controversy over an easy target.
- tzs 13y agoThat makes no sense to me, unless you overlooked that the author is the artist whose work was used without permission or attribution, and thought the author was just some third party jumping in to attack the target.
- chrismcb 13y agoYeah, and? Wouldn't you be offended if someone took your work, and then completely ignored you?
- j2kun 13y agoThe last of the four: > Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. Depriving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit. I'm curious to know: would Sarkeesian's use of this piece as a criticism would negatively or positively affect the author's potential for future work? If anything, I'd guess the latter (I would forever after market my skills as being used in TED talks and such).
- chrismcb 13y agoFair use is mostly to allow reviews and criticism for created works. Not to keep culture vibrant. Using someones work, it its ENTIRETY as part of a montage isn't transformative. Nothing here strikes of transformative, or fair use. It is someone copying someone else's work. And this has nothing to do with commercial vs non commercial