Dude looks like a Lady What a funky laaaady...
UMG FAILED to respond to the appeal of their fraudulent copyright claim thus releasing any claim they have. Suck my big fat chode UMG.
This video has been Fraudulently copyright claimed by UMG
according to copyright laws this video ts protected by Fair Use, this video and its audio
1. Is satire, parody, and commentary presented in a comedic way
2. does not diminish the value of the original work
3. is transformative in nature
4. the totality of the work (meaning both the video and audio must be considered as a whole entity) is protected by Fair Use.
after my response to UMG through YouTube broken copyright system UMG still claims they own this video. This video is making fun of a transtrender SJW something in the current age is something most companies want to stay away from doing, as 99% of companies cater to the lunatic left. It's good to know that UMG wants to take responsibility for a video that could be considered "hate speech" by the SJWs and Lunatic Left.Where is the #NewYorkTimes on this one? "UMG supports transphobic "hate speech video" ... is the headline should read. UMG and anyone else claiming copyright on this video is in violation of the FEDERAL COPYRIGHT LAWS AND FEDERAL COURT CASES LISTED BELOW
17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
(Pub. L. 94–553, title I, § 101, Oct. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 2546; Pub. L. 101–650, title VI, § 607, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5132; Pub. L. 102–492, Oct. 24, 1992, 106 Stat. 3145.)
The main tenets of what constitutes Fair Use are:
A small portion of the original material is used.
Commercial value of the original is not diminished.
New work is predominantly original product of the user.
Benefit to user is predominantly other than commercial.
The new work is critique, satire, or education.
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (2015) the courts ruled
fair use must be considered
United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit.
Jorge Antonio SANDOVAL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW LINE CINEMA CORP., New Line Productions, Inc. and New Line Distribution, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Docket 97-9175. Decided: June 24, 1998
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)
This case established that the fact that money is made by a work does not make it impossible for fair use to apply; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis.
17 U.S. Code §506. Criminal offenses
17 U.S. Code §506(c)
Fraudulent Copyright Notice.—Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.
According to the DMCA 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v), the copyright holder must consider whether use of the material was allowed by the copyright owner or the law.
17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v)
A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.