[cjensen]

Doesn't look like fair-use to me.

The rebelliouspixels version, with its extensive on-screen critique is fair-use since it appears to be a critique. But if the original YouTube version lacked that, then the video devolves into little more than a fanfic video by a Buffy-loving Twilight-hater.

Even the rebelliouspixels version appears to contain far more "quoting" of the original material than is needed for its critique.

[ghshephard]

Where are you getting your definition of "Fair Use?"

From: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/...

"What Is Fair Use?

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner....

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody....

A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to “conjure up” the original. "

[ryusage]

> This past summer, together with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, I even screened the remix for the US Copyright Office at the 2012 hearings on exemptions to the DMCA. Afterward my Buffy vs Edward remix was mentioned by name in the official recommendations by the US Copyright Office on exemptions to the DMCA as an example of a transformative noncommercial video work.

It's definitely fair use.

[cjensen]

Was the screening with the on-screen captions?

[ryusage]

As to that, I have no idea. However, I would argue that the video is absolutely fair use even without the captions. Ignoring that its status as a critique is not strictly necessary for it to be fair use, the video would still be a critique without blatantly spelling out its point in words.

[appleflaxen]

It's surprising how much weight the community gave your opinion, because the truth is that it really doesn't matter what your opinion is.

My comment isn't meant to be snarky; it's meant to point out the /ultimate/ absurdity of our copyright system - that you literally /cannot determine/ if something is or is not fair use without a judgment. As in a judge.

So while you make important points about the presence or absence of commentary, the fact that the video was transformed /at all/ means that it's no longer a determinable question.

[beedogs]

> Doesn't look like fair-use to me.

If you don't know what "fair use" is, you probably shouldn't be opining on this.

[cjensen]

You'll note that provided a reason why it is not fair use, and you did not dispute the reason.