<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>betterunix</author><text>The use of copyrighted material for criticism or comment (e.g. &quot;to make a point&quot;) is, in fact, considered fair use:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;Additionally, the video was &lt;i&gt;educational&lt;/i&gt; (it demonstrated how to create something), further bolstering the claim of fair use.  The NYT is entirely out of line with the C&amp;#38;D, and it is particularly troubling that a newspaper -- which &lt;i&gt;frequently&lt;/i&gt; engages in fair use, &lt;i&gt;frequently&lt;/i&gt; reproducing material as part of their journalism and their criticism -- would send such a letter.</text><parent_chain><item><author>tinco</author><text>Catchy title, but:&lt;p&gt;&quot; I used their images/video to make a point. I can see how the video could fall under Fair Use&quot;&lt;p&gt;Frankly I don&apos;t see &lt;i&gt;at all&lt;/i&gt; how that would fall under Fair Use, and The Times is absolutely right to C&amp;#38;D him.&lt;p&gt;Also, &quot;A statement of fact about a company is not a copyright infringement.&quot;&lt;p&gt;No, but a statement of fact about a company that is not backed by public data is slander. NYT doesn&apos;t even claim that the reference is copyright infringement, the author just assumes that.&lt;p&gt;edit: ok, I actually thought he had put a demo &lt;i&gt;website&lt;/i&gt; online in which he used the images, so it would look like the NYT&apos;s page (but with lorem ipsum for text or something) but he just made an educational video of it, I can see that could be fair use. So I retract my absolute statement. (as should be done with absolute statements in general! (absolutely)) I still think the &apos;hundreds of hours&apos; remark isn&apos;t cool, but perhaps the law is on his side there too.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The New York Times Told Me To Take This Down</title><url>https://medium.com/meta/503b9c22080b/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>Ma8ee</author><text>&amp;#62; No, but a statement of fact about a company that is not backed by public data is slander.&lt;p&gt;That is not enough. It also needs to be untrue and it needs to harm the reputation of the company.</text><parent_chain><item><author>tinco</author><text>Catchy title, but:&lt;p&gt;&quot; I used their images/video to make a point. I can see how the video could fall under Fair Use&quot;&lt;p&gt;Frankly I don&apos;t see &lt;i&gt;at all&lt;/i&gt; how that would fall under Fair Use, and The Times is absolutely right to C&amp;#38;D him.&lt;p&gt;Also, &quot;A statement of fact about a company is not a copyright infringement.&quot;&lt;p&gt;No, but a statement of fact about a company that is not backed by public data is slander. NYT doesn&apos;t even claim that the reference is copyright infringement, the author just assumes that.&lt;p&gt;edit: ok, I actually thought he had put a demo &lt;i&gt;website&lt;/i&gt; online in which he used the images, so it would look like the NYT&apos;s page (but with lorem ipsum for text or something) but he just made an educational video of it, I can see that could be fair use. So I retract my absolute statement. (as should be done with absolute statements in general! (absolutely)) I still think the &apos;hundreds of hours&apos; remark isn&apos;t cool, but perhaps the law is on his side there too.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>The New York Times Told Me To Take This Down</title><url>https://medium.com/meta/503b9c22080b/</url></story>