For a period the video was up, but with advertisement revenue going to Lionsgate. They were getting revenue from something that was largely someone else's copyright. In spirit, if they think they should be getting money, then Buffy's copyright holders should too.
Of course, neither should automatically be getting revenue, fair use and all.
> Of course, neither should automatically be getting revenue, fair use and all.
that's not true - the author of the work should get revenue should they decide to (but only if they decide to). Lionsgate is not the author of the work. Some components of the work are from the copyrighted works owned by lionsgate, but that is due to fair use, and thus lionsgate has no claim on the copyright of the remix containing some of their stuff.
Fair use does not mean no revenue (nor does revenue even come into the argument!).
>In all fairness, many people aren't going to want to watch, read, or associate themselves with Twilight after viewing this video.
Which is exactly the point. The purpose of copyright is not censorship. That's why parody and criticism are the core of fair use.
I think the fair use factor that talks about the effect on the market for the work is kind of confusing if you don't have the context of the associated court decisions: It refers to whether the allegedly infringing work competes with the original, not whether it makes everyone stop buying the original through effective criticism.
...and after seeing that Lionsgate is abusing my country's legal system like this, I will be sure not to give them a single cent of my money. If these companies want to know what it really means to "lose sales," we should show them by boycotting.
