http://disqus.com/people/d89919afb46484fe82fed92e09c69ee9/enTue, 18 Nov 2008 15:42:32 -0000http://mathewingram.disqus.com/lane_hartwell_still_wrong_on_fair_use_34/#comment-39054"if a court were to argue that a photo should be removed because it appeared for less than a second, in a video satirizing (in part) the person in the photo -- then the idea of fair use might as well not exist."<br><br>Um, no. Fair use would still exist when the derivative work is a critique or commentary on the original copyrighted work. In this case, they are using the full copyrighted work in a context that does not have a specific commentary on the original work and therefore could easily use a substitute. Fair use is not a free-for-all... Just because you are doing a 'parody' doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want. <br><br>If you can provide a court case that allowed for fair use where the derivative work does not directly rely on the original, please let us know. Every case I've read was a DIRECT parody or commentary on the ORIGINAL WORK.anonymous cowardTue, 18 Dec 2007 00:42:30 -0000http://iphonedev.disqus.com/unmasking/#comment-3883246I am a Chinese player of the IPHONE. Thank you for your efforts. Come on! !anonymous cowardTue, 18 Nov 2008 15:42:32 -0000