These criteria have been stated in various ways, but essentially they can all be reduced to the four standards which have been adopted in section 107: “(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes (2) the nature of the copyrighted work (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” On the other hand, the courts have evolved a set of criteria which, though in no case definitive or determinative, provide some gauge for balancing the equities. Indeed, since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts. “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”Īlthough the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |