Imagine There’s No Fair Use

[robin_d_laws]

Comments

[queex]

Down with stroppyright!

[killfalcon]

Wow. That's a serious case of 'whoever wins, we lose'. But, it's blatantly fair use, so even if we lose, at least we lost for the right reasons.

On the plus side, the movie didn't do too well in the cinema.

[robin_d_laws]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but it's made $7.6 mil so far -- a huge number for a documentary.

[richardthinks]

Seconded, on all counts. On another issue of conflicted interest, what's your take on the whole Canadian Human Rights Commission thing? I'm a bemused spectator, wondering what to think about it all - on the one hand, I cannot stand Mark Steyn; on the other, I certainly don't want him gagged.

[robin_d_laws]

I expect the complaint against Steyn to fail in B.C. and at the federal level, as it properly did in Ontario. The rights commissions were never designed to police speech. If a judgment were made against Steyn, it would be struck down on Charter Of Rights and Freedoms grounds, either before or at the federal supreme court level.

[richaje]

In terms of its "chilling effect" on free speech, I think it is irrelevant whether the rights commission complaint fails or is struck down - the defendant was forced to pay significant legal expenses (which will not get reimbursed by the State - unlike with private litigants). To me, this is akin to a SLAPP ("Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation") - litigation intended to intimidate and silence critics or opponents by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense so that they abandon their criticism or opposition.

[aries_jordan]

Cognitive dissonance?

[anonymous]

Hmm. I agree that its probably best that Yoko Ono lost the suit. But... you can only use criticism or satire as the basis of fair use if what you're criticizing or satirizing is the thing you're using. So, I couldn't use something copyrighted by Robin D. Laws in a critique or satire of McDonalds, unless I was also criticizing or satirizing Laws. I haven't seen Expelled. Are they really criticizing or satirizing Imagine? Or are they just appropriating it in order to play a jingle while they make some point that, even though it may be related to religion, is unrelated?

[robin_d_laws]

Based on the linked article, they criticize the lyrical content of the song. Seems off-topic to me, but there's no requirement in fair use doctrine that the criticism take place within a thematically coherent argument.