>>73796428>y'allBe less obvious for once.
>>73796317>their content their rulesThis argument only works as a counter to the legal question, not the practical one: If Cover is fine with screenshots, and Anycolor has been fine with screenshots in the past, why is Anycolor not fine with them now? I know, as do most people here, that Anycolor has the right to restrict re-use in such a way; my question is why they chose to do so now.
As to the actual legal issue, screenshots and clips can be shared if they fall under fair use. This is the case even if permission to do so is explicitly denied by the company (copyright holder); fair use has never required permission. As to negative coverage, like
>>73789043mentions, that's the purpose of fair use: criticism. Obviously, a copyright owner would be less-than-excited to allow a license to someone to speak ill of the work; thus, fair use allows for negative commentary, including commentary that re-uses the original work in some way, for the greater social benefit. Certainly, sharing images of the incredibly poor quality of the AR Live falls under fair use when used to criticize the company and their performance at this event.
I've heard that Japan has poor (if non-existent) fair use laws. That doesn't matter for X or 4chan posts, however, as both of those Web-sites are hosted by U.S.-based companies. To enforce a DMCA claim, Anycolor must follow U.S. law, which allows for a counterclaim on the basis of fair use.
