[woodman]

ctrl+f 'transformative'... No matches.

I'm surprised by the sympathy I'm seeing for this position. You people know that she is effectively complaining about fair use, right? This is not something that can be budged on, even in deference to the feelings of a "writer/feminist/educator". Fair use is the only thing that stands between us and massive intellectual property cartels guiding the public consciousness through selective enforcement. Wanna go back to network television? Because this is how you do it.

[speedplane]

Fair use isn't a blanket excuse to do whatever you want. The key component is whether your use is transformative. If you copy something to criticize it, or make something that doesn't compete with the original, it's likely fair use. If you copy something just to have it, or build upon it, it's not. This is a new issue, but copying someone's tweets, just to create your own library of tweets is not really transforming anything, I don't see how this is fair use.

[woodman]

Google "Richard Prince copyright". This is not a new issue, not even close.

BTW... She is using a still[0] from a video that CNN owns the copyright to, and section 3 of their tos[1] explicitly forbids doing what she is doing - with the unnecessarily stated exception "as otherwise expressly permitted under copyright law". You really want to take that exception away from her? I can pretty easily argue that her use is transformative, can you? How does this differ from what she is complaining about?

[0] http://www.erynnbrook.com/white-feelings-for-charlottesville... [1] https://www.cnn.com/terms

[speedplane]

How is the use of that photo transformative in anyway? Did she add to it? Is the piece about criticizing the photo (which would be transformative) or is she using it as part of an opinion news piece (which isn't)?

And btw, the Prince case is illustrative because the judge ruled that some of his pieces were transformative, but others were not, walking that gray line.