setsneedtofeed

The OP is asking about using portions of copy written works. Therefore if those works were used or not wouldn't be at issue. What would be issue is if the use is fair use. Which again, goes back to the balancing test which would be decided in court if the rights holder pursues it.

From what I have gathered of the Lemmy zeitgeist, intellectual property doesn't exist except if AI uses it.

you can in some situations argue that the way you infringed on their copyright should be allowed

That would be an argument made in court, pursuant to the balancing test. You would be arguing that the use wasn't actually infringement. Thats how fair use is determined.

People can give you their best guesses, but without a court case and a ruling it is impossible to say what the answer will be with iron certainty.

My guess, for US law, would be based of the four factor balancing test used in determining fair use. The four factors are the nature of the use, the nature of the copyrighted material, the amount of the copyrighted material used, and the effect of the use on the value of the material.

If you are using the copyrighted works for a non-profit purpose that helps, if you are remixing them that helps, if you are using works that are not violating right of first publishing that helps.

Importantly copyright does not have to be enforced by the holder for them to retain full legal protection. What that means is even if the holder somehow became aware (which honestly is pretty doubtful for such a small individual use), they can simply choose not to pursue the matter. The resources that could go into pursuing a copyright case for such a use are probably going to be a lot more than any gain they'd get. Big IP holders have endless waves of people using their material, and their resources are better spent going after uses that are clearly trying to make or making a profit or distributing their copyrighted works.

The TLDR is yeah sure, it's probably fine. If you somehow got the evil eye on you, in practical reality the first thing you'd get would be a C&D letter anyway.

Edit: Here is the relevant text in 17 U.S. Code § 107

Tom Jane in the lead. Okayish action movie, not really a proper Punisher movie. I reccomend instead watching Stander with Tom Jane which is a much more interesting movie.

If you don’t know what positive reinforcement sounds like, I get it.

No, no. It's words that sound like positive reenforcement be repurposed by people who don't want to deal with an issue.

"Good catch!"

Usually said when you bring up something that needs fixing, and said as a way to puff you up and not actually follow up on the problem.

I had an internal laugh to myself in the Wonder Woman movie when the Amazons had an Israeli accent. I guess it was easier to train everyone else to mimic her accent than it was for her to not let it slip.

Of all characters, yes Emperor Palpatine knows he is evil and he loves it. Sometimes villains are nuanced and sympathetic. Sometimes they are evil space wizards who are passionate for the game.

They did the same thing with the fully automatic firearms ban in the 80’s.

There was no ban in the 80s. For full auto firearms to be legally owned, they had to have been registered since the establishment of the 1934 NFA.

What happened in the 80s was the closing of the registry to prevent new full auto guns from being added, but existing legally owned guns would have already been registered.

In that scene the T-Rex is trying to flush out people which it knows are hiding somewhere as well. (Disregarding all the T-Rex specific science and just focusing on the idea of a predator screaming.)