tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post113111767954471517..comments2024-03-15T11:42:21.265-04:00Comments on The Patry Copyright Blog: Two Fair Use CasesWilliam Patryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12987498082479617363noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1142260817855669782006-03-13T09:40:00.000-05:002006-03-13T09:40:00.000-05:00Dear Mr. Patry;Regarding your statement "...you me...Dear Mr. Patry;<BR/>Regarding your statement "...you merely look at his work to see if it is, objectively, transformative. I think Blanch was a transformative use and Puppies not," you reveal your naiveté about the possibility of making "objective" judgements regarding visual documents -- images as opposed to texts composed of words. Whereas one could indeed objectively determine whether a text had been lifted verbatim or not, such observations regarding images are always highly subjective and subject to interpretation. Where visual art is concerned that is very much the point, since interpretation varies widely depending on what each viewer brings to the table. Many would disagree with your statement that Puppies was not a transformative use -- your reliance on factor three of the fair use doctrine ("amount and substantiality of the portion used...") is a simplistic one as you apply it to Puppies, comparing the original to the polychrome wood sculpture. There are many other elements at play. It is obviously a matter for interpretation and not "objectivity" hence the increasingly embattled nature of the subject at hand. Once again I am dismayed at the insufficiency of lawyers who routinely make judgements about visual documents. <BR/><BR/>Well, good day and best wishes -- maybe see you on another panel some time...<BR/><BR/>Joy Garnett,<BR/>NYC<BR/>http://newsgrist.typepad.com/underbelly/2006/01/koons_wins_land.htmlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12505562.post-1131400447076993452005-11-07T16:54:00.000-05:002005-11-07T16:54:00.000-05:00The Court's analysis of the fourth fair use factor...The Court's analysis of the fourth fair use factor in Video-Cinema Films is flawed. The reasoning employed, "because plaintiff licensed us of its clips, Judge Buchwald held that defendant's unauthorized use would 'erode the market value' for the clip" will almost always collapse this factor into a single question of whether Plaintiff sells licenses. I think the correct analysis should look at whether the defendant's use was supplanting the market for other potential licenses. Clearly it was not because Defendant did not sell its work and the Court should have found the Fourth factor in favor of the defendant. Anytime someone tries to use a work without permission as a fair use, they necessarily are not paying a license. I don't understand how the Court's reasoning adds to anything not already known in any fair use defense issue.Michael Eisenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06908090564993265508noreply@blogger.com