Do you think fair use is based on how many characters or words that are transposed lol? If that’s the case, why wasn’t your copying of schlosser’s quote copyright infringement? Did you happen to not exceed some magical number of words…
You clearly do not understand how a fair use defense would work. Fair use is a defense against infringement, it doesn’t matter what someone’s restriction of rights or license terms state. Fair use promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected material.
If you were to actually advance a non-fair use argument you would be citing some sort of case law or maybe Section 107 of the copyright act which provides the framework for fair use. But you already knew all of that!
Let me explain to you how fair use is determined, fair use is determined through a balancing of numerous factors which include (1) Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purpose, (2) Nature of the copyrighted work, (3) Amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) Effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. Different federal court circuits have interpreted this balancing differently but I doubt any would come to the conclusion that you did. However, since you play a judge all the time, you’re a mod/owner of a message board and a technical writer, you must be right!
But I assumed you knew all that because …
Please feel free to remove this post for infringement of your copyrighted quote! Judge robert finds no fair use!
Fair use has always been and likely will always be a fact specific determination taking those four factors into account, they’re not going to set down criteria because that would make the copyright law highly inflexible. But you already knew that…
Sure whatever you say, that’s what you should’ve said the first time instead of copping some shitty fair use argument.
That’s actually not true (one of us actually does this for a living) but again sure whatever you say!
As per your rules even though the previous quote was deleted completely, in response to your initial comment that an apology by Schlosser is sufficient, for anyone following this shibumi issue, here’s why many feel it is and was not sufficient:
As quoted in the article. “Several of those interviewed say that the apology’s placement underneath a caption for mugwort mochi made it difficult to find and thus felt insincere. “It reads the same way as all of these other companies that say, ‘We’re listening and we’re learning,’ but [he] still deleted all of those comments. [He’s] not really owning up to the fact that [he] deleted like dozens of comments from community members…“I don’t know that the apology goes far enough. It apologizes for presumptuous remarks, but it doesn’t apologize to the community that they were very active in silencing.” …Schlosser continued to delete comments and to block accounts even after posting the apology. “In his apology, he said that he needed to listen and learn to the AAPI community, but after [the apology was posted], he was still censoring, he was still deleting, still isn’t addressing the issues that were brought up.”
He didn’t let a bunch of trolls take over his business’s Instagram feed. What a terrible person for making great food instead of engaging with the internet peanut gallery. He’s the kind of asshole who thinks that decades of devotion to his craft matters more than one stupid antisocial-media post.
It is a valid question to wonder if decades of devotion are outweighed by other, unsavory behavior.
And it’s valid to wonder b/c, if you’re part of the group that has been objectified (b/c objectification can easily be the flip side of “devotion”), it’s a truly distressing and disturbing experience to question if the person who’s been smiling in front of your face for “decades” has also been harboring resentment/anger/malice/whatever toward you for all of those same decades.
My final thoughts on the issue for now (since I do not currently, and have not in the past, any interest in Shibumi or in Schlosser): yeah, but we’re dealing w/ emotions and a group of people and a culture here.
Things for you are very cut-and-dried. They are not so for other people.
Another way of looking at it is is that some people prefer to spend their time looking for things to tear down on Instangram, Twitter, and other antisocial media rather than creating something positive themselves in the real world.
Random coincidence, the NY TImes had a set of articles about fair use today. I’m quite confident that I understand fair use law as well as some of these judges, which might be saying that I don’t know shit.
That is highly doubtful. That’s akin to saying “I understand back surgery as well as a back surgeon because I read 3 articles about back surgery and the articles said that back surgery is only successful 20-40% of the time and it can be confusing and complex.” Just because you google some articles that support your thesis that fair use can be confusing doesn’t make you knowledgeable about fair use.
Does that include yourself for attempting to denigrate the complex work of judges in fair use cases as quoted above lol? Keep in mind that the NYT is a general interest newspaper, it is not a legal publication. The writers are trying to synthesize and boil down analysis from legal experts interpreting caselaw from judges while trying to forecast the outcomes of a case, all within some indiscriminate low word count and while simultaneously attempting to make it digestible to a layperson. There’s a reason why caselaw is so esoteric, dense and long.
You are clearly moving the goalposts, we were discussing fair use in the context of a message board posting and you are now mixing in fair use issues related to parody, transformation, and commercial use which are non-topical. As stated above fair use is a highly fact specific determination, just because it can be highly confusing in some cases doesn’t mean that in this instant case it is.
If you want to run your message board like a mercurial one person dictatorship that’s your right, but please own up to it instead of attempting to sow confusion due to your lack of subject matter expertise on fair use and copyrights and uneven rule enforcement when you disagree with another person’s point of view.
Removing posts that look like copyright violation to me is not disagreeing with anyone’s point of view. That’s just basic moderation. In my judgment, seven paragraphs with 700 words (over 25% of the article) goes well beyond fair use. I’d have removed the post even if you were agreeing with me. Eater et al. would like people to go to their sites to read their articles, and so would I.
I’ve read copyright law, opinions in Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose and other fair-use cases, legal-press commentary, and books about fair use and appropriation, and seen how judges come to opposite conclusions on the same or similar facts. Lawyers don’t have a monopoly on informed opinion.
I will agree with that much, as a site admin for wineberserkers we highly highly discouraged a full scale copy of text. I didn’t see how much text was posted here but when it’s a large wall of text we take it down.
We’ve had take down notices sent to us. Easier to just remove than fight it.
You just missed Beserkerday which is an insane sale on wine, food, stemware and a bunch of other stuff. Look for it on the board and put a reminder in your calendar for next year. I filled up my cabinet with Glasvin this year. Thanks @David_K