Proven Industries v. Trevor McNally: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
fixed cite errors |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
===Rebuttal<!-- Read documents from: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ -->=== | ===Rebuttal<!-- Read documents from: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70036390/proven-industries-inc-v-trevor-mcnally/ -->=== | ||
#Trevor McNally's lawyers claimed that Section 107 of the Copyright Act<ref>{{Cite web |date= | #Trevor McNally's lawyers claimed that Section 107 of the Copyright Act<ref>{{Cite web |date=2025-08-31 |title=107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use |url=https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250311190810/https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 |archive-date=2025-03-11 |access-date=2025-08-31 |website=U.S. Copyright Office}}</ref> allows fair use of copyrighted material for "criticism, comment, news reporting, [or] teaching" and that the video that the take down request was made on was covered by protected use on all four factors of the section.<ref name=":3" /> | ||
#His lawyers also claimed his video was transformative and that the portions he included were there to facilitate criticism.<ref name=":3" /> | #His lawyers also claimed his video was transformative and that the portions he included were there to facilitate criticism.<ref name=":3" /> | ||
#The original Proven Industries was minimally creative and had already been published and McNally's reuse was minimal and integral to his criticism of the Latch Pin Lock.<ref name=":3" /> | #The original Proven Industries was minimally creative and had already been published and McNally's reuse was minimal and integral to his criticism of the Latch Pin Lock.<ref name=":3" /> | ||