'Fair Use' is murky at best, as I understand it the doctrine only applies work intended to comment on something.
Like the image President Obama from the 2008 campaign; the 'Change' graphic. People have taken that and changed the words to comment on the President for a variety of reasons. That is fair use, they can use the copyrighted material.
What is interesting (to me). Is that the original photo that same graphic was created from was used without credit. from an AP photo. IIRC it is in the courts now. The artist in question is claiming it is a derivative work, which makes it his. I hope he loses, as he has made a lot of money off of someone else. The original photographer or copyright owner deserves at the least credit.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-04 07:15 pm (UTC)Like the image President Obama from the 2008 campaign; the 'Change' graphic. People have taken that and changed the words to comment on the President for a variety of reasons. That is fair use, they can use the copyrighted material.
What is interesting (to me). Is that the original photo that same graphic was created from was used without credit. from an AP photo. IIRC it is in the courts now. The artist in question is claiming it is a derivative work, which makes it his. I hope he loses, as he has made a lot of money off of someone else. The original photographer or copyright owner deserves at the least credit.