copyright laws are pretty confusing and i think both sides could make a worthwhile case depending on the case law they use.<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>A television film crew, covering an Italian festival in Manhattan, recorded a band playing a portion of a copyrighted song "Dove sta Zaza." The music was replayed during a news broadcast. Important factors: Only a portion of the song was used, it was incidental to the news event and did not result in any actual damage to the composer or to the market for the work. ( Italian Book Corp, v. American Broadcasting Co., 458 F. Supp. 65 (S.D. N.Y. 1978).)<p><hr></blockquote><p>certainly, the song used by apple was not "incidental" to the commercial...it was the essence of the commercial. i think it would be hard for eminem to argue that he lost any sales because of the commercial, but he probably has a case when he says that he lost endorsement money. of course, his potential earnings are much less when he is not the artist and is merely the author of the words ($10 million seems outrageous, fwiw). i wonder if apple could argue that their use was educational in nature (educating about the iTMS -- not a chance in hell)...they'd win using that fair use policy easily. <br><br>--------------<br>"Question with boldness even the existence of a god."<br> A letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787 by Thomas Jefferson