Parodies received relatively strong protection under Fair Use. One of the reasons is because a parody is fundamentally a criticism of the original, and…cases right up to the Supreme Court have provided relatively strong and broad protection for parodies.
Parody is something that holds the original up to ridicule. You have to be saying something about the original, presumably something negative, or at least critical about the original.
Remember, a parody doesn’t have to be funny, it doesn’t have to be successful, it may not even make any sense, but it has to target the original with some form of critique. 大概摘要是，完全照抄肯定違法，但若是置入自己的想法、評論、批判（不需要一定是善意的）有了一定程度的轉化，便在合理使用範圍。
Using copyrighted material in a classic case of Fair Use, and so using a clip or portions of the copyrighted material in order to present your review of a film, that is something very likely to be found a Fair Use.
So in answer to your second part of the question: it doesn’t even matter if you’re promoting the film, you could be criticizing the film and saying that it’s terrible and using clips to support that argument, and that would still be a fair use.
雖然大家很愛提誠實預告有取得電影公司授權等等，但除了他們以外的影片取用電影畫面（不只是出自預告）難道全都違法？
有商業營利就一定違反合理使用？
合理使用一定得要出自善意與尊重才符合條件？
這就是這支影片釋疑的地方。
噗首影片主要根據的法條內容連結: THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998
影片中主要針對parody（惡搞類影片）的釋疑如下（5:24～6:54）
Parodies received relatively strong protection under Fair Use. One of the reasons is because a parody is fundamentally a criticism of the original, and…cases right up to the Supreme Court have provided relatively strong and broad protection for parodies.
大概摘要是，完全照抄肯定違法，但若是置入自己的想法、評論、批判（不需要一定是善意的）有了一定程度的轉化，便在合理使用範圍。
是否營利是參考因素，但不是絕對因素。
基本上還是推薦大家把這部影片看完，有更多更好懂的例子，我只是很偷懶的摘錄部份而已。而且八點阿苗就要開講，應該也不差這一噗，但還是希望大家討厭谷阿莫歸討厭，創作方面也不用先畫地自限的規定"要有多少愛才能創作"云云，也不用認為二創就是百分之百依附在其他創作上的東西，永遠只能看人家臉色。
目前我覺得最有機會告成的點是造成片商巨大損失的部份。
不過營利的部分感覺很模糊，如果數字可觀，那麼版權方應該也能夠要求獲利？
對啊營利部份沒把話說死，如果真有傳說中1.5億資金的話我覺得他應該逃不了
當然手動轉我也無法阻止大家lol
已經開始一段時間了，講了比較多詳細的部份，之後也很推薦去看完整影片～～～～