If you have a claim against a fair use holder, you may want to prepare for the next round of court battles.
In a new lawsuit, the New York State Fair Use Society filed a lawsuit against a company named Orange County Fair Use for allegedly failing to comply with its fair use doctrine and its Copyright Act.
The lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, says Orange County, which owns the Orange County fair, violated the fair use act in refusing to make the movie.
The movie was originally scheduled to be released in February, but the company’s attorney argued in the lawsuit that the movie should have been released sooner, and that the court should have heard the case as a class action.
The film’s copyright owner, the film’s producer, and several other parties have filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the suit.
In the motion, the companies argued that Orange County’s refusal to make an earlier version of the film infringed on the fair usage doctrine and the Copyright Act, because the movie was not a bona fide parody of fair use.
They also argued that the fair uses doctrine should apply to fair use claims against people who are “individually or collectively responsible for copyright infringement,” as long as they have a fair-use interest in the material, such as the right to be heard.
We believe the case against Orange County is extremely important, said Andrew Stromberg, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, in an interview with Recode.
We believe they’re wrong.
In other words, you have to have a copyright to make movies, and you have rights, and the copyright owners, the movie owners, have no rights at all.
They don’t have any rights to use fair use in the first place.
They’re trying to make this case so that they can get back at me, the people who sued them, and they’re trying make this argument that we’re not responsible for this.
They have this right to make a movie, but they’re not making it in the spirit of fair usage, the suit argues.
Stromberg said the suit is “the first case to challenge the fair-uses doctrine.”