This video upload may contain copyrighted materials republished here to serve humanitarian purposes, public health, or safety, pursuant to threats clearly and convincingly in the news, and open to fair use in social commentary. You will notice that republished copyrighted materials such as this, and others uploaded to Vimeo.com/RevolutionTelevision channel, do not compete with, or damage, the commercial operations or sales of the copyright holder(s), and are exclusively published here to serve society, public education, and news commentary or parody, purposes, in accordance with First Amendment rights, and more importantly, public duties.
Quoting from Wikipedia on this topic:
Justice Souter described the need to simultaneously protect copyrighted material and “allow others to build upon it, quoting Lord Ellenborough: ‘While I shall think myself bound to secure every man in the enjoyment of his copyright, one must not put manacles upon science.’
“The Court elaborated on this tension, looking to Justice Story’s analysis in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841), where he stated, “look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.” This analysis was eventually codified in the Copyright Act of 1976 in § 107 as follows:
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 Supreme Court then found the aforementioned factors must be applied to each situation on a case by case basis.”
Critics of this posting who wrongly claim infringement will not that: (1) the parties reposting this video do so for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work is of social and political importance; and typically, (3) the small segment(s) of the original work(s) re-published here do not damage the nature of the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work is negligible, indeterminate, and moot.