Walt Disney Case Summary

My client, professor Faden is not guilty of copyright infringement. If anything Disney is most known for suing many people because of “copyright infringement.” My client has not used the material used from Disney to sell or affect the market of Disney in any way at all. Instead he has used the acceptable and fair use terms. Such as using it to educate people about copyright, its terms and also how to prevent infringement. He shows chapter after chapter each subject of copyright and fair use. My clients does in fact mash up different clips of the Disney films but he doesn't use it for commercial use or entertainment. Mr Fadden's film is used more to inform than to entertain. The fair use trail even tells what copyright is
Also it was considered a parody and commentary. Since they were making fun of them and making a comment and not selling or entertainment. A similar case like this one is the Fisher V Dees trial in which the work was altered by lyrics and also 6 bars of music. It was only 29 seconds long and was considered transformative and did not affect the original work.This case was fair use since it was parody and noncommercial use. Even this case used more of the original work than my client did. One final case that hasn't been too long ago is the Ethan and Hila Klein case in. In this the two youtubers made a parody in which it comments on the hoss video. They transformed it into a funny video and only took a small portion to complete it. This work was not a substitute market video for the original one. As the same in our case my client only used, the amount specified in the fair use rules, needed to prove his statement and educate. Not only does the short film pass the requirements for fair use. It also shows a planned out short film that informs you about copyright. So this is why my client Mr Fadden is not guilty in infringement of any Disney