I emphatically disagree. Fair use is a non infringing use even if the copyright holder denies you permission to use their work. Indeed, that is the whole point of the balance between the copyright holders' rights and those of users to make fair use. Congress has long determined that non-commercial uses of portions of copyrighted works for commentary, criticism, parody or other "fair uses" is permissible and non infringing. Thus, had Lenz done any of the things you mentioned (including likely selling the videotapes) no infringement action against her would likely have been successful. The DMCA and the takedown provisions allow copyright holders in many cases to prevent or even prosecute many "fair uses" because of unintended loopholes in the way the laws were phrased.

Your opinion however, seems to be shared by many in the intellectual property community -- that is that the monopoly in intellectual property created by copyright law is an absolute one, and that ANY use without permission is infringing. Indeed, my use of the title of the Prince song in my article would also lead to potential civil damages. This is NOT what the copyright law says or intends.

[ reply ]

Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/467/34994#34994