OK, as usual when these happen let's play the fair use analysis game.
There are 4 fair use factors. For a fair use defence to succeed you must have more in your favour than against (with the 2nd being the least weighty).
- Factor 1: The Purpose and Character of the Use.
the statute explicitly lists several purposes especially appropriate for fair use, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.
Was Ron's use substantially different to Tim's? Yup.
Ron wins.
- Factor 2: The Nature of the Copyrighted Work.
Unpublished and fictional works are more protected than publicly avaliable factual works.
Tim's work was published and factual, so gets minimal protection under these rules
Ron wins
- Factor 3: The Amount or Substantiality of the Portion Used.
Was only enough of the original used to make the point or was way more used? Was the bit use the "heart" or most important part of the work.
Only a tiny clip out of an entire video was used, nothing more than necessary was used.
Ron wins
- Factor 4: The Effect of the Use on the Potential Market for or Value of the Work.
Does the new use totally replace the original, can you get everything from the new work without ever going to the old work.
Only the tiny bit used means that the new version does not replace the original, you could not watch the new video and have experienced the entire copyrighted work.
Ron wins
Thus by the fair use analysis by 4-0 Ron's use is covered by fair use.
