Home Tech

Tech

Random

Global WiFi Thermostats Market Study 2018- Nest, Honeywell, ecobee, Schneider Electric, Emerson, Lux Products, Carrier

Techevangelist - September 28, 2018

Galaxy S10+ dual front cams don’t offer substantially better portrait selfies

CNN’s Jim Acosta slams reason for White House press pass suspension: ‘This is a lie’

Indian government lifts TikTok ban, says it can return to the App Store

7 Best Charging Stations For All Your Gadgets

Assessing 2018 Major Growth Opportunities of D-Xylose Market

Techevangelist - October 16, 2018

Apple Makes A Public statement About Spotify

Techevangelist - March 27, 2019

Get the Magjet magnetic USB-C charging cable for MacBooks 10% off...

Techevangelist - February 23, 2019

Mint Mobile’s Super Bowl commercial is must-see TV

Techevangelist - February 3, 2019

YouTube Rewind 2018 is already the second-most disliked video ever

Techevangelist - December 11, 2018

10 Best Huawei Mate 20 Pro Cases

Techevangelist - November 10, 2018

If Apple Is a Services Business, It Needs to Start Reporting Like One

Apple Music, Video Could Become Meaningful Earnings Drivers

Techevangelist - June 25, 2018

15 Common Google Pixel Problems & How to Fix Them

Techevangelist - December 7, 2018

LG says its AirPlay 2 and HomeKit rollout will begin ‘mid-year,’...

Techevangelist - March 6, 2019

WhatsApp Working on Fingerprint Authentication for Chats on Android: Report

WhatsApp Working on Fingerprint Authentication for Chats on Android: Report

Techevangelist - January 9, 2019

12 3...275 Page 1 of 275

MOST POPULAR

A court ruling from 2018 on a copyright complaint brought attention to a little known loophole in copyright protections. The court ruled that the alleged infringer was not guilty because, among several reasons, the way they used the content was different from the original content was used. Four Factors to Determine Fair Use The court used a test of whether the reproduction of the photo was fair use. The court document cited the following four factors to determine whether the use of the photo fell under the protections of fair use: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commerical nature… (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; (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. On the first point, the court examined whether the new image created from the original image was “transformative” in nature. Ordinarily this means how much the image was changed. What may come as a surprise to most people, there is a precedent dating to 2009 that holds that a work “can be transformative in function or purpose without altering or actually adding to the original work.” What the court did was to first examine what the function and purpose was of the original was. In this case the purpose of the original was found to be “promotional and expressive.” The court then determined that the purpose of the copied image was informational, which meant that it was transformative. It is commonly understood that one of the ways to determine fair use is the purpose of the copied content, such as for use in a work of criticism. Transformative Use But there is a little known concept called “transformative” that can also be considered. Transformative in this case related to how the image was used in a non-commercial manner versus the commercial manner of the original. That was enough, in this case, for the defendant to get away with using someone else’s content. Wikipedia’s page on Fair Use states this: “It is arguable, given the dominance of a rhetoric of the “transformative” in recent fair use determinations, that the first factor and transformativeness in general have become the most important parts of fair use.” To make it clearer, this is the heart of the above statement: “It is arguable… that the first factor and transformativeness in general have become the most important parts of fair use.” This concept of the “transformative” nature of the use of copyrighted content is little known in the search and content marketing industry. Here is how the court found that the defendant’s use of the original content was transformative: “While Brammer’s purpose… was promotional and expressive, Violent Hues’ purpose… was informational: to provide festival attendees with information regarding the local area. Furthermore, this use was non-commercial, because the photo was not used to advertise a product or generate revenue.” The court highlighted the non-commercial aspect of the defendant’s use to show how it differed from the original commercial and promotional use of the original. The purpose of the original work was not informational, but the purpose of the copied content was informational. The court apparently found this to be evidence that the work was transformative. Other Reasons Why Infringement Claims Dismissed The court also found that the copying of the content was done in good faith, in that the defendant claimed they didn’t know the content was copyrighted. Their good faith claim is supported by the fact that the infringer took down the content after the content creator contacted them. On the second point of the nature of the copyrighted work, the court found that the content was used for it’s factual content, not for the creative nature or features. Official AdWords Campaign Templates Select your industry. Download your campaign template. Custom built with exact match keywords and converting ad copy with high clickthrough rates. DOWNLOAD NOW ADVERTISEMENT Additionally, it was discovered that there were instances where the creator had published the image without copyright notices, which in the opinion of the court: “…the scope of fair use is broadened when a copyrighted work has been previously published. It is undisputed in the record that Brammer previously published the photograph on several websites as early as 2012, and at least one of these publicatoins did not include any indication that it was copyrighted.” Amount of Content Used This is the part that most content creators are familiar with. If an alleged infringer uses only a portion of the content, then it could help it be considered fair use. In this case, the alleged infringer used approximately half of the original image. But it wasn’t the half amount that was important. The court found that the alleged infringer used: “…no more of the photo than was necessary to convey the photo’s factual content and effectuate Violent Hues’ informational purpose.” On the fourth factor, the plaintiff failed to produce evidence that the alleged infringers use of the content impacted the “potential market” for the content. The court quoted the Supreme Court when stating that this fourth factor is “undoubtedly the single most important element of fair use.” Court testimony from the content creator confirmed that the plaintiff had sold the image at least twice since the alleged infringement. Takeaway: What this Means to You In matters of the law, you should always consult an attorney. There are many articles and conference speakers who encourage others to “come down hard” on copyright infringers and file DMCA complaints. But that approach could backfire if you have not consulted with an attorney to understand your actual legal standing. For example, the DMCA provides the accused infringers the opportunity to answer a DMCA complaint and to receive a court hearing. This could mean court costs and possibly travel expenses. If the court finds that the use of the alleged stolen content was transformative, then you may be out of luck and possibly out of pocket for litigation related fees. Takeaway 2: Proceed with Caution The common advise found in forums, Facebook Groups and marketing conferences about copyright infringement is to “come down hard” on the infringers. But as you can see in the above referenced court case, copyright infringement is a nuanced issue. This is why when it comes to copyright related issues, it’s always best to proceed with caution by consulting with an attorney in order to properly understand your rights and remedies.

Court Ruling Exposes “Loopholes” in Copyright Protection

July 5, 2018

How to Add Age Verification in WordPress

How to Add Age Verification in WordPress

October 16, 2018

Best MicroSD Memory Cards for Amazon Fire Tablets

Best MicroSD Memory Cards for Amazon Fire Tablets

December 30, 2018

How to back up your iCloud Photo Library

How to back up your iCloud Photo Library

February 5, 2019

HOT NEWS

Galaxy Note 9 battery life isn’t great, but it never leaves...

Apple and Qualcomm’s Global Fight Heads to Court in San Diego

GitHub is down because of data storage issues

GitHub is down because of data storage issues

Get Intego’s Mac Internet Security X9 bundle w/ parental controls for...

EDITOR PICKS

Express Recipes: How to make Creamy Papaya Raita

December 10, 2018

Apple Server Most Powerful rack optimized server

December 10, 2018

Experiencing the new Oculus Rift VR headset

December 10, 2018

POPULAR POSTS

Higher Google Rankings Technique You don’t know (Practicable)

Higher Google Rankings Technique You don’t know (Practicable)

February 10, 2018

SP Flash Tool v5.1824 Download SmartPhone Flash Tool for Windows...

October 7, 2018

iPhone carrier checker free ( Gsx Checker) 100% Working

iPhone carrier checker free ( Free Gsx Checker) 100% Working

December 8, 2017