48
This is likely not fair use. At first blush it appeared similar to things one might see in The Onion (parody print and online newspaper) or other parody publications or shows (SNL, Key and Peele, etc.). In this case, the context would have likely been deemed transformative. However, since they are selling coffee called "Dumb Starbucks" while using their ...
42
No. The images are copyrighted, and you are using them in a way that would leave you with virtually no argument for fair use. The factors for fair use are set out in 17 USC 107, and they indicate that the courts would reject your use:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether it is of a commercial nature or for nonprofit educational purposes: ...
26
Probably not
I think this question represents a misunderstanding of the linked article, and in any case of the specifically US doctrine of fair use.
Fair use is always based on a part of a copyrighted work copied without authorization. If there was authorization, there would be no need to resort to the defense of fair use.
The article discusses the ...
25
Many D&D monsters and creatures are based on creatures occurring in folklore and myth, such a vampires and trolls. Those are in the public domain, and anyone may use them freely. But images published as part of D&D, or by independent artists, are subject to copyright, and may not be used without permission. As the answer by bdb484 says, there seems ...
23
Go to court and find out
There is no doubt that humming a tune and recording it (or performing it in public) is a derivative work - a right reserved to the copyright owner.
Whether it is fair use depends on the specifics of the case. From the tweet, we simply don’t have enough information, however, at a guess, it is probably not fair use.
Fair use in law is
...
22
Twitter don’t have to host your account
UMG’s and Sony’s business is probably more important to Twitter than yours is. It seems Twitter have made a commercial decision to close your account down. They can do this:
We may suspend or terminate your account or cease providing you with all or part of the Services at any time for any or no reason, …
What’s ...
19
If the photos are exact or "slavish" reproductions of flat (2D) art, then under Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., 36 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) the photos are not original, and have no copyrights of their own. If the art was not under copyright (for example published before 1924) then neither are the photos. If the art is still under copyright, the ...
17
As noted in other answers, no, you are not allowed to use these creatures under Fair Use. You could go back to their original mythological underpinnings (for those that have them), but you would have to take great care to make sure everything about them you describe comes from myth and not from D&D.
There is another option, however. Many Dungeons & ...
14
In the UK, it would not be allowed, as the company is selling coffee while making it likely that customers will believe it is Starbucks coffee.
As well as Starbuck being able to take action over the use of their trade mark, trading standards could take action as the company is clearly likely to deceive customers.
8
I presume from the fact that you mention "fair use" that you're interested in United States law. In that case, the answer is a clear-cut "no".
17 USC 107:
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 ...
6
Considering their own FAQ (as shown in the question) specifically states that they're only calling it a parody to try to get away using Starbucks' name and logo for the purpose of selling coffee, they almost certainly would not be able to get away with this in court were they sued by Starbucks. They openly admit that their intention is not parody at all, but ...
6
Wikipedia has two kinds of pictures:
Reusable pictures, most of them stored at http://commons.wikimedia.org
Copyrighted pictures under fair-use, stored on the local Wikipedia (in your case, the Russian Wikipedia) but not on Commons.
To know what case it is, just click on the Wikipedia picture, click on the blue "Description" button, and see whether it ...
6
You’re confusing satire with parody. Parody is when you use the protected work to comment on that work, while satire is when you use it to comment on something else.
If you take R. Kelly’s “I Believe I Can Fly” and change the lyrics after the first verse to be about the singer jumping off a roof and having to spend the next three months in the ICU, that’s ...
6
In the United States, making a copy without permission is generally going to be a copyright violation, unless the copying is a fair use. Fair-use defenses look at four questions, and the answers to the questions can tip the scales in favor of or against a finding of fair use:
Does your kind of copying affect the market for the original? To what extent can ...
6
The question as worded implies that if something is a parody it is automatically fair use or allowed in US copyright law. This is a myth.
First of all, in a copyright context, the term "parody" is somewhat limited. In that sense, a "parody" is a new work which comments on the original (often but not always by mocking or ridiculing the original). A mere ...
6
Probably not. It sounds like you've copied the complete work without any meaningful transformation. You've reduced the market for the original work by hosting your own copy. The fact that your purpose "is to share the information" doesn't really do you any good, as that is also the purpose of the original work. You're almost certainly outside fair-...
6
It probably is infringement, assuming that this is being done by copying parts of a broadcast of the game. It is up to the holder of the copyright on the original broadcast that is being condensed to decide whether to sue or take other action, such as a takedown notice. Perhaps the holder thinks this is good advertising for its business. They have the right ...
5
Unfortunately the answer is a vague "it depends." Commercial versus non-commercial is not clearly defined in actual law, and is usually up to the specific license to define what it considers to be commercial use.
If you were putting them on your business cards, then it's just being used for advertising and whether it's commercial use is a bit controversial. ...
5
You cannot run MacOS legally on any computer that is not Apple-branded. It is a DMCA violation. There are technical measures in place that check that the OS is running on an Apple branded computer. These measures are easily circumvented, but they need to be circumvented, which makes it a DMCA violation. A company selling computers with MacOS installed (...
5
No. You may not do this. As your post points out this is a blatant copyright violation. It isn't remotely in the realm of fair use.
5
The first copyright law dates from 1710, so it's not true that Chekhov wrote before any copyright laws. Any work from prior to 1924 isn't necessarily safe to use (it depends on when the author died). It is in the US but will complicate things if you publish internationally.
Unless you translate with something like Google translate, translation is definitely ...
5
It doesn't make a difference if the product is free or commercial use, if it's initiated by a company or an individual. What you are considering would be a "derivative work" and without explicit permission from the copyright holder, it is considered a violation.
5
The only way for the hummer to find out definitively is to file a counter-notice that, assuming the copyright holder files an infringement lawsuit, argue fair use. There is a reasonable chance that a fair use defense will succeed. The main impediment to fair use is the alternative that the "copying" is commercial. However, educational and "...
5
EditVideoBot is an automated program that automatically edits videos based on commands provided by other Twitter users that mention the account - I am providing the service, other people operate and produce the material with it. I don't see why I need to take the fall.
There is no general-purpose "it's automated so liability is no" rule in the US. ...
4
Titles can't be copyrighted.
Meta-data like #2 aren't copyrighted.
Not sure if the MPAA could protect its ratings, but I can't find anywhere that it has asserted restrictions on the use of those.
If the list of "Similar works" is not somebody else's intellectual property then there's no problem. (If it is I'm not certain what protection it could be ...
4
If you are utilizing the name of the characters just so users can rate them (by rate - I mean rank, review, critique) you should be fine. Copyrights are subject to "fair use" by the public. For purposes such as review, criticism, and comment - this is generally considered to be fair use.
Is the site commercial or for-profit? That could impact the analysis, ...
4
Presumably you are referring to works commonly called "fan fiction." Under copyright law these might be considered "derivative works" and therefore subject to the rights of the copyright owner. However, they might also qualify for exemption from copyright enforcement under "fair use."
It appears that the legality of fan fiction is not settled law, and the ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
