In the US, whether or not you make money has little to do with whether or not your use qualifies as "fair use".
That a use is noncommercial is often a deciding factor in the success of a fair use defense. GP is overstating it though, since it’s still one of many factors.
But what I was arguing was that a use is not "fair use" merely because it's noncommercial in nature. I cannot make copies of movies and give them away on the street for free and successfully claim "fair use".
Weird Al has made a fantastic living copying music while only changing lyrics. He makes very heavy use of the satire plank of Fair Use.
The “commercial” test is only part of the decision criteria for Fair Use.
If that were true, I could take a band that I hate, copy all of their music note-for-note, then release an exact copy on the market and undercut them by selling their entire discography for $0.01
Fair Use requires one of several enumerated activities, including satire, education, journalism. You can’t just copy content and hope that it passes Fair Use.
Hire a lawyer if you are unsure. But at least read the Wikipedia article on the subject if you are going to talk about it.
