It does not violate copyright, it is true, to say "The NYT spent hundreds of hours..." It is not 'fair use' though, because it is not a use of copyrighted material in the first place. 'Fair use' means fair use _of copyrighted material_, it is a defense against using copyrighted material without permission.
'Truth' is not in fact any kind of a defense against copyright. If you really _do_ copy someone's copyrighted work without permission, and it is not fair use, then it is completely irrelevant whether the text you copied was 'true' or not. But if did not copy someone's copyrighted work, then you can't possibly have violated their copyright.
For instance, if someone else had first written an article that began "The NYT spent hundreds of hours...", and went on, and you copied that entire article yourself without permission, and you did not have a fair use defense -- you would be violating their copyright, regardless of how true or false the article was.
'nominative fair use' is a legal theory of _trademark_, and what you say may actually be more applicable to trademark, aha, okay. Important to be clear though.
> 'nominative fair use' is a legal theory of _trademark_, and what you say may actually be more applicable to trademark, aha, okay. Important to be clear though.
This part is the only part that matters here: the second C&D about the use of New York Times mark is entirely about whether it's fair use to use it.
Yes, nominative fair use is about trademarks. I'm sorry that I didn't make that sufficiently clear, since the first part of that sentence was about copyright and the second was about trademarks.
And again, what I was talking about with truth was more about claims and less about copyright.
It does not violate copyright, it is true, to say "The NYT spent hundreds of hours..." It is not 'fair use' though, because it is not a use of copyrighted material in the first place. 'Fair use' means fair use _of copyrighted material_, it is a defense against using copyrighted material without permission.
'Truth' is not in fact any kind of a defense against copyright. If you really _do_ copy someone's copyrighted work without permission, and it is not fair use, then it is completely irrelevant whether the text you copied was 'true' or not. But if did not copy someone's copyrighted work, then you can't possibly have violated their copyright.
For instance, if someone else had first written an article that began "The NYT spent hundreds of hours...", and went on, and you copied that entire article yourself without permission, and you did not have a fair use defense -- you would be violating their copyright, regardless of how true or false the article was.
'nominative fair use' is a legal theory of _trademark_, and what you say may actually be more applicable to trademark, aha, okay. Important to be clear though.