What is a “bonified legal issue”?

Are you an attorney?

Hahahahah….Qwerty sucks the bog ONE!!!!!

Please do not attempt to provide legal advice unless you are licensed to practice law. <<<<

Now that was a MAJOR ownage!

What is a “bonified legal issue”?

Are you an attorney?

If you are, how come you don’t know how to spell “bona fide”?

Please do not attempt to provide legal advice unless you are licensed to practice law.

“(Notice that the purposes listed are illustrative rather than comprehensive. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., supra, 510 U.S. at 577-78.) In deciding whether a particular use is fair, the “factors to be considered shall include”–and notice again that the listing is ILLUSTRATIVE RATHER THAN EXHAUSTIVE; Congress “intended that courts continue the common law tradition of fair use adjudication ” and [section 107] “permits and requires courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute, when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed to foster,”

and

“The important point is simply that, as the Supreme Court made clear not only in Campbell but also in Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, supra, 464 U.S. at 448-49 n. 31, THE FOUR FACTORS ARE A CHECKLIST OF THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED RATHER THAN A FORMULA FOR DECISION; and likewise the list of statutory purposes. See also Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publishing Group, Inc., supra, 150 F.3d at 141; Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Televison, Inc., 126 F.3d 70, 78 and n. 9 (2d Cir. 1997). Because the factors and purposes are not exhaustive, Ty can get nowhere in defending the judgment by arguing that some or even all of them lean against the defense of fair use.”

qwerty: Thanks for offering to look up some authority to help shed light on the discussion. If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re not disputing that Wendy wins on fair use factors 3 and 4. Rather, you are asserting that she has failed to make any colorable showing that would satisfy factor 1, and that this failure is sufficient to place her actions outside of fair use. This seems contrary to the notion of fair use as a balancing test–normally in such tests, you can lose on one factor but still win if the others cut your way. Moreover, it would seem that at the very least you have to agree that the “character” of her use was non-commercial. Why is that not sufficient to satisfy the first factor given that there is no dispute that this use does not harm the market for the copyrighted work?

You also seem to be assuming that for use of an excerpt to be “educational” the reproduction must be accompanied by some commentary on the content of the excerpt itself. Even assuming that this is so (and this is one of the things I’d like to see authority for), why isn’t it satisfied by the blog post, which did comment on the overreaching nature of the copyright notice?