Fair Use Case Summary

The law must come to terms with the difference between artistic intent and economic intent. Artistic freedom is more important for the health of society than the supplemental and extraneous incomes derived from private copyright fees. They create art of police and control, since no matter how the original intent of the copyright laws are, today, they are subverted to censor resented works that suppress the public’s need to reuse and reshape

Authors and publishers believe that the book industry will disintegrate through the implementation of a “fair use” system on copyright material. Authors, publishers and booksellers instigate that if recommendations for “fair use” were enacted, there would be negative ramifications on Australia’s creative content and will discourage local investment. In the Sydney Morning Herald’s article “Writers and publishers voice opposition to new copyright proposals”, Steger (2016) states ‘removal of restrictions will cut prices and accelerate supply. The so-called "fair use" system allows use of some material without payment to copyright holders’. Steger (2016) emphasises that the implementation of a copyright reform to adopt the US system of “fair use” would promote a potential fall in jobs in the sector and discourage investment. Steger (2016) also goes on to highlight the economic instability Australia’s creative content may face, instigating that a ‘fair use’ system would “destabilise an industry that contributes $7.4 billion to the Australian economy” (Appendix 2).

The purpose of the copyright system has always been to promote creativity in society and protect the creators’ interests. In applying copyright laws to any creation, three basic guidelines apply. First is the fair return for a creators labor, second is “Fair Use” of the creators’ labor and finally the Progress of Science and useful Arts to further the public good. The application of these three guidelines in litigation for A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, found that the rights of reproduction, and distribution had been violated, in effect upholding the copyrights of nineteen different music companies represented under A&M Records name, this ruling had protected the music industries interests. However it would seem that the publishing industry would not be so lucky, litigation in Authors’ Guild vs. Google ruled that Google’s actions constituted fair use. Under these two scenarios’ the copyright laws’ have, effectively, protected the rights of music artists’, protected the public’s right to “fair use” and sparked new opportunities for creative growth. However, lawmakers continue to struggle to define copyright boundaries between the public’s right of use and the creators right to profit from their efforts.

Anyone accused of copyright infringement is protected under the claim of Fair use as long as they stayed within the fair use guidelines; the borrowed work must be used for the following reasons: Education, Critique, Parody or commentary. Professor Faden has been wrongly accused of Copyright infringement over his “Fair(y) Use Tale” video by Disney, accusing him of stealing their Intellectual Property for his own personal gain. This paper will prove Professor Faden’s innocence and why his video should be allowed to stay online.

Thesis: This paper will discuss the specifics of copyright through fair use and appropriation art, how the laws have changed over the past 50 years, and its impact on the field.

Books used to be a hard copied deed with words handwritten by ink pen, owned by the rich until the advent of the first printing press, enabling many to own multiple copies of this so called books. This also allowed affordable access to information and education for most. As time passed on, words began to show up on electronic devices allowing all to own at least one copy of a book "that's ever been written"; at least until it just "vanishes". Some may see this great technology as the greatest asset of the world, however, others may believe such things are wrong and not the conventional way of doing things. The contentious issue of eBooks replacing the traditional hard copied

Copyright provides artist the ability to protect their works recreation by others but the law lacks clarity of every possible dispute. The first amendment protects people’s freedom of speech and gives them ability to create anything. The problem surfaces when copyright overrides free speech and

Fair Use is considered the "grand daddy" of copyrights clauses. Fair use allows people to use the work of other if they are using the work for criticism, news reporting, scholarship, comment, teaching, research, and teaching, each has its limitations. There are four identifiers used to determine if use of a copyrighted work is considered fair use (Yearneau,2010; Jamar, 2013; Goldman, 2014; Grimmelmann, 2014; Kankanala,

3. Fair Use generally is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “Trans formative” purpose, such as to comment upon criticize or parody a copyrighted work.

Fair Use: It is the copying of any form of copyrighted material that is done for a transformative reason.

The Ninth Circuit like the District court used elements of the precedent case Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. to make their decision. (In this case, a photographer (Kelly) brought and infringement claim against an owner of an internet search engine (Arriba Soft Corp) which like this case, provided images of the photographer’s expression. The court held Arriba’s use of the thumbnail was considered fair use due to added on expression of the original work and how it benefited the public.) (1) The purpose and character of the use: Does the new work “transform” the original work with new forms of expression added or does the new work simply copy the original work without any new forms of expression? The Court of Appeals in the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Google they argued that Google’s thumbnails transformed the original image from a means of entertainment, to a source of information in turn, educating members of society. (2) Nature of the copyrighted work: Is the new work that was copied published or unpublished? Likewise, is the new work that was copied fictional or truthful? While Perfect 10 added new forms of expression to the images on their site, these images were previously published. Under the first publication right it is the choice of the original author of the expression to determine when, where and how their work will be displayed. Unfortunately, Perfect 10 disregarded his right when they placed the images online for profit. As a result, the majority ruled that Perfect 10 does not have the same protection privileges as the original author for unpublished expressions. (3) The amount and substantiality of the portion: Was the amount used an extensive portion to the copyrighted work as a whole? The court referred to the Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. case claiming, “It was necessary for Arriba to copy the entire image. If

Second, this speculative anticipation of market harm limiting to students will always disfavour a finding of fair use. What if in the case like India which is in dire need to access to reading material in future the court finds a use of a copyrighted material to be fair even when such use seems to have a negative impact on the market of the protected work, which gives the impression that a negative impact on the market may not necessarily lead to a finding of unfair use. In Campbell v. Acufff-Rose Music, Inc., while not denying the fact that parody can harm the market at all, the Supreme Court of the United States surprisingly made a finding of fair use. Therefore, it is important to consider that the market impact is not always conclusive as to whether the use is unfair. If the case goes in appeal, it is important for the Supreme Court’s to examine the reasoning, necessary in order to appreciate its opinion and understand why a court

Literature states that the terms ’fair use’ and ‘fair dealing’ are regularly confused. Due to my own lack of awareness, I initially assumed that they were interchangeable terms. However having read a substantial amount about both, I appreciate that there is a significant difference in what they protect and how they protect it.

Offred talks about how she worked in a library where she transferred books to CD’s to “cut down on storage space and replacement costs” (Atwood 216).

The 21st century has brought numerous technological changes to the publishing industry. These changes include electronic books (eBooks), print on demand and accessibly publishing. E-books have been quickly growing in availability since 2002 . Google, Amazon and Sony have been leaders in working with publishers and libraries to digitize books. According to estimates from Google there are about 130,000,000 unique books in the world. So far they have scanned and digitized over 12,000,000 that are primarily out of print or no longer commercially available. Google has publicly stated a goal to scan and digitize all of them within this decade. This ambitious project was introduced by Google in 2004, at the same time they announced partnerships with several high profile universities and public libraries including Harvard, University of Michigan, Stanford, Oxford, and The New York Public Library. Worth noting is that with the technology Google is using, anyone is able to search this