deMotivationalsGroup

Thank you!

The wannabe mods keep saying that our posters aren't covered under *fair use* yet they never get taken down. These people are confused between pure screenshots and posters.

Posters are covered under fair use as "Parody" for the purpose of comment and critique. They're also covered under fair use as "Partial" reproductions. They aren't the full length program.

When they're framed and cited, they're fine. The demotivator style of boxing images does a lot to point out the fact that it isn't *your* art.

It's much the same with tracings and colorings of individual manga pages. They're also covered under *fair use* as limited reproductions of the full length comic.

We do not sell these, they are not art-prints, nor do we use them for the purpose of advertising another product. There is no monetary gain. Essentially what we're doing amounts to free advertising for the shows and programs we love and cherish.

[link] Purpose and Character: The first factor is regarding whether the use in question helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public, or whether it aims to only "supersede the objects" of the original for reasons of personal profit.

[link] Nature of the copied work: Although 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, fair use analyses consider certain aspects of the work to be relevant, such as whether it is fictional or non-fictional.

[link] Amount and substantiality: The third factor assesses the quantity or percentage of the original copyrighted work that has been imported into the new work. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, e.g., a few sentences of a text for a book review, the more likely that the sample will be considered fair use. Yet see Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios for a case in which substantial copying—entire programs for private viewing—was upheld as fair use. Likewise, see Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, where the Ninth Circuit held that copying an entire photo to use as a thumbnail in online search results did not weigh against fair use, "if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use."

[link] Effect upon work's value: The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his or her original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original. The burden of proof here rests on the defendant for commercial uses, but on the copyright owner for noncommercial uses. See Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios,[14] where the copyright owner, Universal, failed to provide any empirical evidence that the use of Betamax had either reduced their viewership or negatively impacted their business.

We are fully aware about the art theft thing bluh bluh. We're working on using only original art and replacing old images, so just please stop telling us that it's against the rules. WE KNOW. WE'RE WORKING ON IT. >.C