Fair Use is something that the Girl Talk case really focuses on. Fair Use is something that can be described as a piece of work that adds further purpose or a different aspect. Is the work "transformative"? Does it add another meaning to the original work? These are all determining factors that define what fair use actually is.
With the Girl Talk case specifically, I think it has to be considered transformative. Girl Talk created such a following it was almost a genre-defining style in its own right. All of the songs mashed together in these mixes are so short and have been modified greatly to put his own imprints on. This is the foundation of of what Fair Use should protect.
This guy is digitizing and completely altering just portions of a variety of songs, therefore it does not really have an effect on the market. The only commercial aspect in terms of record sales of Girl Talk was a CD where customers were asked to pay a price of their choosing. Someone could pay as little as, say, 1.00 or $10.00. The artists' music which feature in Girl Talk's mixes, though, are not selling records like that. Therefore Girl Talk doesn't impair the marketability of the original works.
Girl Talk has received a lot of criticism for sparking this revolution of his, the New York Times called him a "Lawsuit waiting to happen." Clearly he has ignited a lot of interest from media nationwide, yet he is still free of charges. It's pretty interesting that despite all of the interest he has garnered for so long now, he is still in the clear. Perhaps they haven't felt it is worth all of the time and money that would go into what would surely be a lengthy case.
