Fair use / Avoiding copyright infringement
From WhyNotWiki
Aliases: fair use
See also: w:copyright infringement, w:Fair use
[[[w:copyright infringement]] copyright infringement] ([[[w:copyright infringement]] w:copyright infringement]).
Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized use of material that is protected by intellectual property rights law (particularly the copyright) in a manner that violates one of the original copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works that build upon it.
Contents |
[edit] Fair use
http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Use-Free-Inquiry-Communication/dp/0893914843 Amazon.com: Fair Use and Free Inquiry: Copyright Law and the New Media, Second Edition
This volume provides thorough coverage of some troublesome and seldom clarified issues that affect scholars who deal with nonprint media. When is it legitimate in teaching or publishing to "quote" a visual image from television, film or printed graphics? To quote the lines from a musical lyric? Why has the long tradition of fair use for printed material, which sanctions quoting without permission, been so slow in its extension to other media? How can scholars and publishers prudently behave in an area where media corporations are uncooperative or belligerent in dealing with requests to document arguments through the inclusion of copyrighted materials? This book offers a forum where scholars, lawyers, archivists, and federal administrators of copyright law express informed viewpoints about these issues.
[edit] What is fair use?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use Fair use
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing
[edit] Fair dealing in Canada
The Canadian concept of fair dealiwithng is similar to that in the UK and Australia. The fair dealing clauses of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users to make single copies of portions of works for "research and private study." Similar to the w:fair use doctrine of United States copyright law, Canada's fair dealing is not seen as an infringement at all.
... The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user's right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users' interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively. ... 'User rights are not just loopholes. Both owner rights and user rights should therefore be given the fair and balanced reading that befits remedial legislation.'"
It then establishes six principal criteria for evaluating fair dealing.
- The Purpose of the Dealing Is it for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting? It expresses that "these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users' rights."
- The Character of the Dealing How were the works dealt with? Was there a single copy or were multiple copies made? Were these copies distributed widely or to a limited group of people? Was the copy destroyed after its purpose was accomplished? What are the normal practices of the industry?
- The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone sufficiently establish fair dealing. In some cases even quoting the entire work may be fair dealing.
- Alternatives to the Dealing Was a "non-copyrighted equivalent of the work" available to the user? Could the work have been properly criticized without being copied?
- The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been published could be more fair than from a published work "in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work - one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair."
- Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? "Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair." A statement that a dealing infringes may not be sufficient, but evidence will often be required.
"These factors may be more or less relevant to assessing the fairness of a dealing depending on the factual context of the allegedly infringing dealing. In some contexts, there may be factors other than those listed here that may help a court decide whether the dealing was fair."
[edit] Fair dealing in the United Kingdom
In the w:United Kingdom, "fair dealing" has always been the subject of dispute because the law never defines clearly the exact number of copies and the amount of the original materials allowed.
Under the w:Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), fair dealing is defined as "private study and criticism and review and news reporting" (s. 29, 30) [...]
The CDPA permits individuals to make a single copy of a "reasonable proportion" of literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works for "research and private study" and "criticism, review and news reporting" (s. 29, 30) under the terms of "fair dealing". The extent of "reasonable proportion" is not defined in the act.
Some higher education institutions in the UK interpret "reasonable proportion" as:
- One article in a single issue of a periodical or set of conference proceedings.
- An extract from a book amounting to 5% of the whole or a complete chapter.
- A whole poem or short story from a collection, provided the item is not more than 10 pages.
- In general, copying of sheet music is not allowed.
- Making more than one copy is also not allowed.
For copying beyond the boundaries set forth by these guidelines, universities and schools in the UK obtain licences from a national copyright collective, the UK Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA), for their staff and students. Under these licences, multiple copies of portions of copyrighted works can be made for educational purposes.
[edit] It is a gray area
- Many infringement claims involve simple cases of copyright infringement where the copying is obvious. Others, however, are more difficult to resolve because copyright protection is not limited to exact copying. It is inevitable that creative and commercial works will take inspiration from the culture at large, and it is often challenging to determine when this "inspiration" has crossed the line into infringement, especially in the case of musical works. There also may be a question of whether the allegedly infringed work is even protected by copyright. Unprotected works may include, for example, compilations of facts that lack the requisite creativity to be covered by copyright, or those works that are in the public domain because the copyright term expired.
[edit] How to get permission
If one wishes to use a copyrighted work in a way that is beyond "fair use" rights, how would one go about obtaining the necessary permission?
- To avoid infringement claims, the right to make use of a copyrighted work can be acquired through an explicit contract or license with the author or publisher, through purchasing a lawful copy (which may provide a number of rights to the purchaser, as under the first-sale doctrine), and for certain types of media, statutory licenses (such as for reproducing and recording musical works under U.S. copyright law). Even without going through such channels to get prior authorization for use of the copyrighted material, doctrines such as fair use or fair dealing may provide potentially broad defenses to infringement claims. The failure of a copyright holder to bring a timely lawsuit against known infringers may later block such a claim by establishing an implied license, as may other acts or omissions that could informally signal consent to use the work.
[edit] [People] clarifying what uses they grant you for use of their content
In other words, a "license". Sometimes they may just reiterate that you only have whatever permission is granted under copyright law ("fair use") and nothing more. Others may extend freedoms to you that go above and beyond those basic rights.
Linking, Quoting, Reprinting - Joel on Software (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/Linking.html).
Occasionally people ask to link, quote, or reprint portions of this site. Here are some general rules.If you want link from your site to Joel on Software
Thank you! I'm flattered. Go ahead and link. It is acceptable to quote short excerpts - up to one paragraph - from my site when you make the link, as long as it is clear in the context of your site that these are my words, not yours.
If you want to quote from Joel on Software
You are welcome to use short quotes from Joel on Software as long as proper credit is given. The rules are:
- Do not pass off my words or ideas as yours.
- Provide a reference to Joel on Software and the original article where the quote is from. On the web, make the reference a hyperlink. In print, include the full URL.
- Use quotation marks around my words.
- Do not put words into my mouth.
- Do not quote extensively. Anything more than about a paragraph of quoting is starting to cross the line.
- Do not paraphrase. You can use your own words, without quotation marks, but if the idea is mine, give me credit.
Acceptable example:
As Joel Spolsky says, "The number of dumb things going on here exceeds my limited ability to grok all at once." (Joel on Software, Wasting Money on Cats)If you are not familiar with the standard rules for quoting people without violating copyright or plagiarizing, please read one of the many guides on the web on this topic.
If you want to reprint my article on your web site or in your publication
Unfortunately I can't permit this. I wish to retain exclusive rights to my writing so that some day it can be published as a book or two.
Not that anyone needs permission to link to your site, ... but thanks. Paraphrasing verboten? I think paraphrasing is perfectly acceptable. But oh well, I guess I'll just quote instead...
http://aplawrence.com/cgi-bin/freprint.pl?/Words2005/2005_08_03.html.
YOU MAY NOT RE-PUBLISH MORE THAN SIX ARTICLES FROM THIS SITE PER YEARONLY SOME PAGES MAY BE REPRODUCED. ALL OTHERS MAY NOT BE COPIED.
/Words2005/2005_08_03.html is copyrighted material. You have permission to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, as long as it is kept intact or if excerpts are clearly marked as excerpts and credit is given as specified herein.
You must always reference "http://aplawrence.com" as the source of whatever you publish, and refer readers to here for copyright information. If published on the web or anywhere hyperlinks are possible, you must present that as a live hyperlink: http://aplawrence.com
You may publish it in paper or electronic form. That includes magazine, newsletters, and web pages, both internal and external, for profit or not. Banner ads and other graphics may be removed, as may be any other links or text. You may not alter text, or add to it in any way that does not clearly delineate what is yours and what comes from this site. You may alter fonts, font sizes and the like and reformat text as is appropriate for your use.
My main concern is that no one would be confused that you wrote something I wrote or vice-versa. If your use meets that concern, and allows people to find the original article here, I have no objection.
Most material here may be freely used in this manner, but some articles here are copyrighted by other individuals or corporations; these paragraphs do not apply to those articles even if accidentally included. If you have any doubt, please ASK.
YOU MAY NOT PUBLISH MORE THAN SIX ARTICLES FROM THIS SITE
...
Going forward, I've changed my policy. I'm not going to allow that any longer. I'm leaving old articles as they were, but everything from this point on is NOT free to copy or use without permission. All new articles on all sites are copyrighted and may not be used with specific written permission.
Tony Lawrence (2005-10-28). http://aplawrence.com/Blog2005/TonyLawrence7.html.
Because of extreme abuse by some other sites, I have changed the reprint and copyright policy here.Note that this has nothing to do with articles by individual authors; those are copyright by the person who wrote them and may not be reproduced without their explicit permissions.
Many older articles here are written by me and may be reproduced in accordance with the terms referenced at the bottom of each article, but with a LIMIT OF NO MORE THAN SIX ARTICLES REPUBLISHED. That's any six of those, but no more than six.
Going forward, I'm not going to allow any copying without explicit permission. Starting today, all future articles I write are copyrighted by me with all rights reserved and will not be available for re-use without explicit permission.
REFER TO THE INDIVIDUAL COPYRIGHT NOTICE FOR EACH ARTICLE BEFORE REPUBLISHING. Not all articles are free to re-use!
Sorry to have to impose this but some people have just duplicated this entire site, which is just not acceptable.
So maybe if you make your licensing restrictions even more draconian, that will make people more likely, more willing to follow them... riiight.
[edit] Other
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Avoid_copyright_paranoia Avoid Copyright Paranoia - Meta
