The reason I say this is that most art is utilitarian anyways and it’s all been drawn before… It would be different if we lived in a world where there were artists like Leonardo Da Vinci or Michelangelo when art was a rare thing… sadly that is not the case anymore… art is everywhere and most things have already been drawn or video taped.

Another reason I say this (from my own artistic point of view) that when you submit your work online, you leave it to be viewed by possibly millions of viewers. Even I know the risks of sharing my artwork and stories on the internet. I risk someone else using it. I would never waste money on a copyright case if my art was taken…. unless the individual had made millions of dollars off it however…. in a lot of instances people don’t always steal art to make millions.

However… in my opinion if a person does not want to risk this from happening then it should not be shared on the internet to begin with. Sharing it just basically opens the doors for people to use it.

If and when I do share my art… I do it freely for others to enjoy for free with no strings attached… if I feel inclined to make money off it or that I do not wish others to possibly use it, then I will not share it online, because I understand the risks of doing so.

As stated above this is my very own personal opinion as an artist and I do not claim to represent anyone else in these statements. They are purely my own. 🙂

This ruling was positive in the sense that it appears to create SOME burden on the part of most people who send DMCA removal notices — they need to at least consider whether the use in question is fair. At first blush that almost sounds like it would support liability under 512(f) if a party sends a DMCA notice seeking to remove content which is clearly fair use. Almost, but not quite.

As Eric and Venkat note, here the court simply said that a person sending a 512(c)(3) removal notice must think about fair use before sending the notice (and presumably only send the notice if they decide the use is not fair). But what’s the penalty for being wrong? Nothing. As long as a party claims to have considered fair use, they cannot face liability under 512(f) no matter how clearly fair the use was.

That’s an absolutely meaningless rule that won’t do anything to stop abusive DMCA notices. And Eric is 100% correct — a defendant in a 512(f) action can win simply by saying they thought about fair use and decided it probably didn’t apply. Ugh.