It's not necessary to prove negligence, as they are alleging defective design. Under products liability law in California this would mean that any manufacturer or seller in the supply line would be liable under strict liability if it's proven that the design is defective. Given the recall and other incidents, this…

Oh no. It's definitely a giant PR nightmare. No argument there.

It's not necessary to show actual damages to the holder of a copyright or profit to the infringer. Statutory damages are available regardless of any showing of actual harm or unjust enrichment. Whether or not the film was made for profit will be relevant to a fair use defense, but it's only one factor in a four factor…

It's not necessary to prove actual damages in a copyright infringement case because of the availability of statutory damages (between $750 and $300,000, regardless of any showing of damages to the holder or profit to the infringer). Short of a successful fair use defense Kahn is dead in the water.

It's cute that you believe there's anything resembling certainty in the godawful quagmire that is U.S. fair use doctrine. There's a reason fair use has famously been called "the right to hire a lawyer." The precedent in this area is like the bible, you can find authority for just about any position you'd like to take.…