Atheists

EUL’s arguments:

Parody, satire and criticism are all legally covered in
the Fair use Act in United States copyright law that
allows limited use of copyrighted material without
requiring permission from the rights holders. The Fair
Use act provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or
incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s
work under a four-factor balancing test

These four factors are:

1. the purpose and character of the use,
including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(A1). Has the new work been created for commercial or noncommercial purposes? (EUL answers: non-comercial use)
(B1). Does the user’s use of the copyrighted work conform to the fair use purposes as set forth in Section 107; i.e., criticism, comment, scholarship, research, news reporting or teaching? (EULs answer: parody/satire/criticism)
(C1). What is the degree of transformation from the purpose or function of the copyrighted work as compared to the purpose or function of the new work? (EUL answers: transformative work)

2. The nature of the copyrighted work;
(EUL answers: see above and adds)

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the availability of copyright protection should not depend on the artistic quality or merit of a work. In other words :Good taste, poor taste, bad art, offensive content etc can never be a decisive factor for controlling the use of any copyrighted material. This ruling ensures that authoritarian control freaks like INM won’t abuse copyright law by denying fair use of their copyrighted material with the pretext that the result of said use is in poor taste, is hurtful or slanderous, in order to avoid criticism. In short: “hurt feelings”, “slander”, “defamation” etc cannot be used as an excuse to exclude fair use of copyright material!

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. (EUL answers: Even if one were to use dozens of inmendham’s images taken as snapshots or audio snips taken from hours worth of videos, the amount of inmendham’s work used in a parody video would still be insufficiently small compared to the original work)

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (EUL answers: NONE)

inmendham’s argument: no one should have the right to use his image or voice if he considers it slander

EUL replies: EPIC FAIL

Pointing out one of many errors in DanielLevesque’s video. I might decide to take on more; he’s made so many it’s hard to decide where to start. It’s almost like debating Kent Hovind…