All ended up being tossed for technicalities related to number of cases an out of state lawyer can file without being a member of the bar in the state the claim was filed. Attorneys seem just a monopolistic guild you must pay to have rights.
The man in video is arguing that a picture of the prison, because it was not taken on public authority of the prison, is in fact an unfair use by a reporter making commentary on the prison. The licensing cost of that photo might even cost more that the reporter makes for filing the piece. Immaterial in the litigant's view.
Failed legal case amounted to "The photo alone must be the item of critique for fair use to apply."
Not my understanding of the law. Court did not decide that point. Hopefully does not become the standard. Here's where legislation should happen and clarify what the 1976 law actually covers, use some examples. But our representatives are too busy pissing on each others legs and denying they do so.
Attacking an artist for his work and using the photo as reference is Fair Use, but that's not the only use allowed by law. A photo in the background of a few seconds of introductory video added to frame a critique should be Fair Use. Publishing tee shirts with that photo is not Fair Use. Making a collage with fractals of the photo should be Fair Use. Using the photo in lampoon is Fair Use. Using the photo as the cover for a book on the prison is not fair use. Pay the photographer as required based on money involved.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, parody, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
The profit incentive of the reporter and his story is marginal. To insist that only news reporting of the photo, it's creation, would be fair use is more predatory litigation. When abusive litigation attempts to silence criticism, the courts want us to file lawsuit as the user under federal antitrust laws to claim the attorney is engaged in anti-competitive actions. That's not a good avenue for relief. All so expensive. Lawyers being paid to fight lawyers. That's the antitrust case.
Worse, lawyers are starting to act upon cases without clients. No attorney should have the right to cry foul for another person's property infringement. The owner of the photo, the guy who took the picture, seems not involved in any of this.
The world needs an enema. Until then best to use sources in Public Domain.
Every time a private civil lawsuit fails, the world is probably a better place. There are so many stupid cases. There are exceptions, but very, very few. Governments need to get back to passing new laws and rescinding old laws. Too much is being litigated or forced to third-party secret arbitration. (One man's opinion).