Yes, if WB believed they owned something it would be valid. But in order to support that belief they would have to have some kind of copyright. If their belief was something that obviously they don't own they would get sued for falsely using the DMCA takedown system.
But if protecting their own content creators no longer allows them the safe harbour of DMCA and they they either go bankrupt or see no point in allowing any questionable content on their platform then content creators aren't protected anyway.
-
-
youtube does not properly screen their content and lies about it. i have a hard time believing they’d lose in court against false fair-use claims. fair-use-dependent industries make up a significant portion of our economy, to suggest the courts wouldn’t be lenient is ridiculous.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.