Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="evilref" data-source="post: 5369639" data-attributes="member: 73517">Irrespective of whether fair use applies (there are good arguments that it doesn't). This (the above) is absolutely not something anyone should rely on as a standard for copyright. It's not something you'll find expressed in court rulings or by the copyright office. Specific 'things' are acceptable in specific places but the general attitude the above sentence suggests is akin to the recent cook's source debacle.Whether or not value is reduced in a copyrighted work has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's an infringement or not. It may (note, may) affect the degree of damages awarded but chiefly you'll see it used to adjust an award upwards, not down.Edit: The very fact it's a complex situation means it's going to be informed (or uninformed) opinion all the way until a court rules on it, and then whether that ruling stands, and if that ruling stands etc. An individual doing something such as has been discussed on their own without distributing said material is unlikely to get named in a suit. Distribution of it, promotion of it and so forth is another matter. What's more the multiple jurisdictions (the UK doesn't have a generalised legal concept of fair use, for example, so invoking that would be no defence for someone on my side of the pond), different courts ruling in different ways the very fact it's 'complex' means that taking a more cautionary approach is, I believe, better advice than the 'yeah, it's totally fine'.If someone did intend to carry out some of the things discussed then they should consider the potential consequences. If they intend distributing said information then that consideration should be even more carefully undertaken.</blockquote>

Verification