> - Gather funny pictures from around the internet
> - Host them on FunnyJunk.com
> - Slather them in advertising
> - If someone claims copyright infringement, throw your hands up in the air and exclaim "It was our users who uploaded your photos! We had nothing to do with it! We're innocent!"
Oh, hey, it's the same as Grooveshark's model two years ago.
This seems to be endemic in American screen culture, slightly less so in the print world. In contrast, European copyright has a side feature called 'moral rights' 'droite d'auteur' - even if you sell the copyright, the original author always retains the right to be identified as the author. There's no financial obligation associated with this for the copyright owner, but it ensures the creator remains associated with the work. My limited recall is that in commercial copyright infringement disputes, courts take a strict approach to evaluating lost profits, but in cases where someone has stripped out the identity of the creator there are often additional sanctions, since it's considered an attack upon the creator's ability to earn a living in the future by being identifiable from their existing work. I'd need time to dig up citations for that, so don't rely on it. but I do think the basic concept is a good one.
> 'craziest police chases'
Footage recorded from police cruisers and obtained as part of the public record? Unlikely to run into a need for copyright clearance.
> 'worst TV moments'
Limited parts of a whole broadcast in a non-market-destroying way for the purposes of commentary? Fair use.
Which isn't to say those shows don't suck.
My mention of Grooveshark had to do with the way Grooveshark was/is encouraging users to upload infringing material with a nudge and a wink.