The part I'm wondering about is that this is a project about criticizing the depiction of women in video games. In the piece we're discussing, however, it's not from a video game. It's a fan art piece tributing a video game.

In any case, I'm disappointed in Sarkeesian for not even responding to the artist.

According to that site, the transformative factor pertains to transformation which adds to the original work. Nothing is being said about the original work in this case. In fact, the original work is not even being acknowledge as an original work. It is being used simply to invoke the character of which it is fan art. I don't see any way to construe that as "value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandings" where "the original" is Ms. Smith's fan art image.

I assumed it was chosen because it looks like a "cheesecake" (is that the right word?) pinup, not simply to invoke the character.

The last of the four:

> Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. Depriving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit.

I'm curious to know: would Sarkeesian's use of this piece as a criticism would negatively or positively affect the author's potential for future work? If anything, I'd guess the latter (I would forever after market my skills as being used in TED talks and such).

I'm assuming they didn't ask for permission for any of the other uses, which seem, at first glance, to be official promo images. And somehow, I don't feel that they should have to.

Fair use is mostly to allow reviews and criticism for created works. Not to keep culture vibrant. Using someones work, it its ENTIRETY as part of a montage isn't transformative.

Nothing here strikes of transformative, or fair use. It is someone copying someone else's work. And this has nothing to do with commercial vs non commercial

I'm just guessing but I'd assume fair use laws are different in every country. If for example the content creator was based in the UK and the potential infringer was based in the US (and the content was digital and online) which countries fair use laws would apply?

It feels like the author is personally offended, and is using the blog to stir controversy over an easy target.

That makes no sense to me, unless you overlooked that the author is the artist whose work was used without permission or attribution, and thought the author was just some third party jumping in to attack the target.

Yeah, and? Wouldn't you be offended if someone took your work, and then completely ignored you?

I agree but also credit should be given where credit is due.

That's an ethical, not legal argument. (Unless we're talking about CC-licensed images requiring attribution.)