Actress
United States of America#2Author of original report
Wed, November 16, 2011
http://equineink.com/2011/08/14/what-is-fair-use-of-photography-and-what-does-that-mean-for-my-blog/
What about Fair Use
A few people on the thread brought up the concept of fair use which allows copyrighted materials to be used for specific purposes. Fair Use is, however, does not provide a blanket excuse for using copyrighted work without permission.
Fair Use is covered in Section 107 of the Copyright Act.
The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
What does that mean? Doesnt it say materials can be used for news reporting?
Yes and no. The first factor looks the new work, created by using the copyrighted materials, and evaluates it based on whether it is used for non-profit/educational purposes or is commercial in nature (preference is given for non-commercial use); whether it is used for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research (also linked back to the commercial/non profit element) and whether the new work is transformative (giving new meaning to the work) or merely illustrative. For example, if you use a photograph as part of a product review or commentary, you have created something new. In the case of photos used on www.lolcats.com, I suspect that the addition of the captions is considered transformative. However, if you use a photo to support an article, the copy may not have added new expression or meaning to the image.
The second factor looks at whether the materials are worthy of copyright protection. In the case of photography, that actually happens the moment the photographer presses the shutter. Even if a photograph is not marked with a copyright statement it belongs to the photographer until he sells its use.
The third factor looks at how much of the work is used. Ideally you should use as little as possible of the original work excerpting just enough to make your point. The subfactors include evaluating the quantity, quality and importance of the work used. For example, you can quote from a speech, especially when using the quotes in a new context, but you cannot reproduce an entire book. With a photograph, that concept is trickier.
The fourth factor considers whether the use of the material will harm the commercial value of the original material to the copyright owner. In the example above, the website included a photograph on its site that the photographer was selling to similar sites. This has the potential to harm the copyright owner because other people might not feel the need to buy the image either. Depriving the copyright owner of income is usually an indication that the materials do not fall under the Fair Use doctrine.
GO TO THIS LINK;
http://copyright.lib.utexas.edu/copypol2.html
Mr. Skin can not use fair use for an excuse for several reasons. You have the copyrights, it cause you to lose money if you want to sale merchandise, you did not make the film accessible to everyone,they are taking stills from the film, they are profiting from us, your film. You are not getting anything, they are making millions.
From a article on the Internet
Mr. Skin had revenue of $5.3 million last year, primarily though $29.95-a-month subscriptions. With more than 175,000 revealing pictures and video clips of about 15,000 actresses (yes, only actresses), the site drew 2.9 million unique visitors in June, according to comScore, the Web traffic tracker. "We don't care about cinematography or great acting or anything like that," Jim McBride, who favors the title chief sexecutive officer, said on the phone from his company's Chicago offices. "We're concerned about the nudity - who's naked, and what they show." FROM MR. SKIN
The penalties for infringement are very harsh: the court can award up to $150,000 for each separate act of willful infringement. Willful infringement means that you knew you were infringing and you did it anyway. Ignorance of the law, though, is no excuse. If you don't know that you are infringing, you still will be liable for damages - only the amount of the award will be affected. Then there are attorneys' fees...
Thank You