Tuesday, October 2, 2012

Copyright Infringement and Fair Use

It seems that even though Facebook removed a photo that Chelsea Hoffman had of Dana Woods, she still believes that she can use that photo. 

There is no reason for Chelsea to continue posting pictures of these two women , not even to start a discussion. There is no cold case, their killers are behind bars, and the families are simply trying to move on and mourn the loss of their loved ones. Unfortunately, Chelsea will not allow the families to do that, because she keeps posting their photo to harass one of the families. 

This photo below is copyrighted per Creative Commons and is not allowed for use for any commercial purposes. Chelsea's Facebook page is linked to her .com site where she took donations, sells merchandise, and has links to her gather.com page, in which she receives payment for every click she gets on an article of hers. This means that the photo that she continues to post is in fact copyright infringement. 

According to Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Fair Use Law there are 4 factors to be considered in whether or not a particular use of a copyright is fair. 

1) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. 

Since Chelsea's Facebook page is linked to other websites that compensate her for her work, it is not for educational or non-profit purposes, but instead it is for her commercial gain

2) The nature of the copyrighted work

Chelsea says: "the photo is for educational purposes as per the exceptions highlighted in U.S. copyright and fair use laws". 

The original use of the photo was to help spread awareness while the women were missing. The nature of this copyrighted work is no longer what it is being used for. It is not being used to harass the families of the women in the photo. 

3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

Chelsea used the entire image, not just a portion of the image, whether it is a screen shot or not, the entire image continues to be used. 

4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work. 

The copyright owner has explicitly expressed through reporting Chelsea on Facebook, that the photo needs to be removed. 

How would you feel if you saw someone making a $ off of your deceased loved one?


  1. Chelsea is a piece of garbage who revictimizes victims with her assenine questioning AS IF these ridiculous assumptions are "criminal profiling". WHAT are her credentials? I can call myself a historian but just because I say so doesn't mean that it is true.

    Thank you for this blog!!! You are doing a great service to the true crime community by outing this grifter.

  2. I totally agree ^

  3. It's ironic that Chelsea Hoffman attempts to hurt others by suggesting that they return to their trailer parks! She doesn't even realise how much her entire behaviour- the way she writes, the gutter-level comments she makes, the way she brags and bignotes herself when her lack of intelligence is obvious- makes her appear to be everything that she inferes others to be. She is the epitome of all that comes to mind when one thinks of cliches of American low lifes!