preme Court stated in Harper & Row, “[t]he crux of the profit/nonprofit distinction is not whether the sole motive of the use is monetary gain but whether the user stands to profit from exploitation of the copyrighted material without paying the customary price.” Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 562, 105 S.Ct. 2218. Under this definition, defendant’s works were unquestionably created for “commercial purposes.” (See Def.’s Br. [48] at 10.) The “for-profit status” of defendant’s works weighs against a finding of fair use. Suntrust Bank, 268 F.3d at 1269. Another consideration relevant to the purpose and character analysis is the extent to which defendant’s use of the copyrighted elements of the SCQuARE Manual is “transformative.” Id. A work is “transformative” when it “adds something new, 1164 (<HOLDING>). The works at issue in this case are not
holding that the failure to place a dollar value on a possible decrease in property value was not unreasonable holding that liquidation refers to the money value of a claim holding the aggregate value of the land and its improvements is the controlling value recognizing that parody has an obvious claim to transformative value holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition