But what I'm saying is that answering the question does not allow you to deduce anything about your rights; that's what I mean by "not a good question".
If we want to establish whether scenario A is fair use or not, and we all agree that A is "worse" (regarding fair use status) than some other scenario B, then if we also agree that B is not fair use, A by definition isn't either. The opposite is not true, of course: B being fair use does not imply that A has to be as well.
I find that kind of upper/lower bound logic can be pretty useful and I think it's what the parent comment was trying to do.
On a related note, that same logic is why I think Godwin's law can be a bit misapplied now and then. Sometimes bringing up nazis/Hitler can be useful to establish some ground truth in a debate (instead of just a way to imply your opponent is actually a bad person, or, possibly, an actual nazi themselves). E.g. a conversation on the morality of violence is vastly different depending on whether you agree that violence against nazis is ok or not.
Afaik not illegal in the US. You put a camera on your own private property (window), use it to record what’s happening in a public space (the street outside), and then store that data in a database (that other people can presumably access). Unless I am missing something, this scenario is perfectly legal in the US.
Inbefore I get hit with “not every country is like that at all,” NYT is based in the US and the lawsuit is filed in the US. So how a bunch of other countries deal with similar issues shouldn’t really have as much bearing on this specific case.
That's not a good question.
If I look out of my window and see my neighbor go to the shop, that's fine. If I use cameras and track everybody I see on the street and put them in a database, then that's problematic and illegal in many places.
Logic does not necessarily apply when scaling is involved.