re: Shooting From the Lip

first a disclaimer

Fair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship. It provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test.

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 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:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


Shooting From the Lip
http://www.crimeshots.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12371

rant deleted

superdave wrote:
Speak up for who, Rex? Me or Wood?

Because I don't need anybody to speak for me.

I have to say, I am rather surprised that no one from any side has anything to say.

how can you be surprised? you got me banned! hahahaha! if u didn't get me banned i'd have this to say among other things

superdave wrote:

Remember when the Carnes decision came down? That was his moment in the sun. It didn't matter that none of the real evidence was provided. He, and his followers on the Internet boards (you know who you are) repeated it as fact that his clients were proven innocent.

Speaking of real evidence, it's revealing to note that even notorious shysters like Hal Haddon and his merry band of rats hate this guy.

how does the presentation of crime scene evidence including fiber evidence, shoe print evidence, expert witness testimony, unsourced tape cord ligature, etc.,

not constitute "real evidence" and "facts"

I don't get it either.