<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Fourth Circuit Issues a Bummer Fair Use Ruling&#8211;Philpot v. IJR	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/02/fourth-circuit-issues-a-bummer-fair-use-ruling-philpot-v-ijr.htm/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/02/fourth-circuit-issues-a-bummer-fair-use-ruling-philpot-v-ijr.htm</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2024 18:53:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Pamela Chestek		</title>
		<link>https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2024/02/fourth-circuit-issues-a-bummer-fair-use-ruling-philpot-v-ijr.htm#comment-4103</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pamela Chestek]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Feb 2024 19:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blog.ericgoldman.org/?p=26049#comment-4103</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t see why this case bothers you so much. It&#039;s a pretty clear infringement and in my opinion fair use a frivolous defense. Certainly the fact that there is a well-established licensing market for photographs for editorial use swings this away from fair use. As to damages, it appears Phipot values his attribution at $3500.  

You seem to blame Philpot for not settling, but maybe it was the defendant who was being unreasonable. And not all lawsuits come down to a simple cost-to-litigate, cost-to-win binary. Especially for Philpot, who is a serial plaintiff and has reason to want to send a message.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t see why this case bothers you so much. It&#8217;s a pretty clear infringement and in my opinion fair use a frivolous defense. Certainly the fact that there is a well-established licensing market for photographs for editorial use swings this away from fair use. As to damages, it appears Phipot values his attribution at $3500.  </p>
<p>You seem to blame Philpot for not settling, but maybe it was the defendant who was being unreasonable. And not all lawsuits come down to a simple cost-to-litigate, cost-to-win binary. Especially for Philpot, who is a serial plaintiff and has reason to want to send a message.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
