Talk:Fair use
From Encyclopedia Dramatica
HARDVICE!!!! You need to do this one. Stuff about 'elements of the tort' would be great. Also the stuff about damanges. And all that other stuff that you know about. I know about it, but it is difficult for me to explain it easily - also I have a problem writing parody. Ironic considering I own the fricking website. Ok. LOVE AND KISSING! Someone add to this!!! --girlvinyl 19:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Um, Okay. ParkingStones 21:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It's really, really funny, but it's not techinically true. Fair use is determined at trial, so there hasn't been a determination yet as to whether there is infringement. Also, you can argue fair use in the alternate ("I didn't infringe, but if I did it was fair use anyway.") I'm not really sure how to say that without ruining the funny, though. --hardvice 21:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I added a bit. It's not really funny, but it fleshes out the balancing test. As for elements of the tort, etc., fair use is an affirmative defence, so all the good stuff would go in copyright infringement, which is the cause of action.--hardvice 21:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- YEA! hahaha. I thought 'elements of the tort' just meant like a numbered list of the law broken down to make sense. Guess I was wrong but I still win cause you did that anyway! HA HA. I love it. This is good stuff. It's so difficult to find these things on the internet explained in an informative AND entertaining way. Oh infotainment, how I love thee. --girlvinyl 22:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Eh?
"Many internet users may or may not love to say that images or words they may or may not be using are may or may not fair use, which may or may not be true. What they may or may not realize is that fair use does not come in to play until a judgement has been reached in court that states there was actual infringement to begin with. So basically, you can't say it's fair use without acknowledging that you are in fact violating the copyright of another. So, watch your cornhole, Wikipedia!"
Surely fair use comes into play in court once an -accusation- of copyright infringement has been made, not after judgement's already been passed. If something passes the test of being 'fair use', then it can't rightly be called copyright infringement at all.
Of course, the internet users in question are only stating their own opinion by saying that their use of a work would be considered 'fair use', but that's no admission of guilt.
