Source: http://everything.explained.today/Fair_use/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:05:57+00:00

Document:
The 1709 Statute of Anne, an act of the Parliament of Great Britain, created copyright law to replace a system of private ordering enforced by the Stationers' Company. The Statute of Anne did not provide for legal unauthorized use of material protected by copyright. In Gyles v Wilcox, the Court of Chancery established the doctrine of "fair abridgement," which permitted unauthorized abridgement of copyrighted works under certain circumstances. Over time, this doctrine evolved into the modern concepts of fair use and fair dealing. Fair use was a common-law doctrine in the U.S. until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976, .
The statutory fair use factors quoted above come from the Copyright Act of 1976, which is codified at . They were intended by Congress to restate, but not replace, the prior judge-made law. As Judge Pierre N. Leval has written, the statute does not "define or explain [fair use's] contours or objectives." While it "leav[es] open the possibility that other factors may bear on the question, the statute identifies none." That is, courts are entitled to consider other factors in addition to the four statutory factors.
However, even the use of a small percentage of a work can make the third factor unfavorable to the defendant, because the "substantiality" of the portion used is considered in addition to the amount used. For instance, in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises,, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a news article's quotation of fewer than 400 words from President Ford's 200,000-word memoir was sufficient to make the third fair use factor weigh against the defendants, because the portion taken was the "heart of the work." This use was ultimately found not to be fair.
The case Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc. revolves around the use of application programming interfaces (APIs) used to define functionality of the Java programming language, created by Sun Microsystems and now owned by Oracle Corporation. Google used the APIs definition and their structure, sequence and organization (SSO) in creating the Android to support the mobile device market. Oracle had sued Google in 2010 over both patent and copyright violations, but after two cycles, the case matter was narrowed down to whether Google's use of the definition and SSO of Oracle's Java APIs (determined to be copyrightable) was within fair use. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Google, stating that while Google could defend its use in the nature of the copyrighted work, its use was not transformative, and more significantly, it commercially harmed Oracle as they were also seeking entry to the mobile market. The case, should this ruling hold, could have a significant impact on developing products for interoperability using APIs, such as with many open source projects.
In April 2006, the filmmakers of the Loose Change series were served with a lawsuit by Jules and Gédéon Naudet over the film's use of their footage, specifically footage of the firefighters discussing the collapse of the World Trade Center.With the help of an intellectual property lawyer, the creators of Loose Change successfully argued that a majority of the footage used was for historical purposes and was significantly transformed in the context of the film. They agreed to remove a few shots that were used as B-roll and served no purpose to the greater discussion. The case was settled and a potential multimillion-dollar lawsuit was avoided.
In 2009, fair use appeared as a defense in lawsuits against filesharing. Charles Nesson argued that file-sharing qualifies as fair use in his defense of alleged filesharer Joel Tenenbaum. Kiwi Camara, defending alleged filesharer Jammie Thomas, announced a similar defense. However, the Court in the case at bar rejected the idea that file-sharing is fair use.
In May 2015, Richard Prince displayed his art gallery at the Frieze Art Fair. His gallery consisted of screenshots of Instagram users' pictures with Prince's commentary photoshopped below in the comments section. Not one Instagram user authorized Prince to use their pictures, but because Prince added his own commentary, the pictures were considered original artwork. One of the pieces sold for $90,000. Further, the Gagosian Gallery, where the pictures were showcased stated that "All images are subject to copyright."
Sources differ on whether fair use is fully recognized by countries other than the United States. American University's infojustice.org published a compilation of portions of over 40 nations' laws that explicitly mention fair use or fair dealing, and asserts that some of the fair dealing laws, such as Canada's, have evolved (such as through judicial precedents) to be quite close to those of the United States. This compilation includes fair use provisions from Bangladesh, Israel, South Korea, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Uganda, and the United States. However, Paul Geller's 1999 International Copyright Law and Practice says that while some other countries recognize similar exceptions to copyright, only the United States and Israel fully recognize the concept of fair use.
An amendment in 2012 to the section 13(2)(a) of the Copyright Act 1987 created an exception called 'fair dealing' which is not restricted in its purpose. The four factors for fair use as in US law are included.
See main article: article and Fair dealing.
See main article: History of Fair Use proposals in Australia. While Australian copyright exceptions are based on the Fair Dealing system, since 1998 a series of Australian government inquiries have examined, and in most cases recommended, the introduction of a "flexible and open" Fair Use system into Australian copyright law. From 1998 to 2017 there have been eight Australian government inquiries which have considered the question of whether fair use should be adopted in Australia. Six reviews have recommended Australia adopt a "Fair Use" model of copyright exceptions:  two enquiries specifically into the Copyright Act (1998, 2014); and four broader reviews (both 2004, 2013, 2016). One review (2000) recommended against the introduction of fair use and another (2005) issued no final report. Two of the recommendations were specifically in response to the stricter copyright rules introduced as part of the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), while the most recent two, by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) and the Productivity Commission (PC) were with reference to strengthening Australia's "digital economy".
See main article: article and Fair dealing in Canadian copyright law.
CCH Canadian Ltd v. Law Society of Upper Canada  1 S.C.R. 339,scc. 2004. 13. is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada case that establishes the bounds of fair dealing in Canadian copyright law. The Law Society of Upper Canada was sued for copyright infringement for providing photocopy services to researchers. The Court unanimously held that the Law Society's practice fell within the bounds of fair dealing.
See main article: article and Fair dealing in United Kingdom law. Within the United Kingdom, fair dealing is a legal doctrine that provides an exception to the nation's copyright law in cases where the copyright infringement is for the purposes of non-commercial research or study, criticism or review, or for the reporting of current events.
Fair Use Week is an international event that celebrates fair use and fair dealing. Fair Use Week was first proposed on a Fair Use Allies listserv, which was an outgrowth of the Library Code of Best Practices Capstone Event, celebrating the development and promulgation of ARL's Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Academic and Research Libraries. While the idea was not taken up nationally, Kyle K. Courtney, Copyright Advisor at Harvard University, launched the first ever Fair Use Week at Harvard University in February 2014, with a full week of activities celebrating fair use. The first Fair Use Week included blog posts from national and international fair use experts, live fair use panels, fair use workshops, and a Fair Use Stories Tumblr blog, where people from the world of art, music, film, and academia shared stories about the importance of fair use to their community. The first Fair Use Week was so successful that in 2015 ARL teamed up with Courtney and helped organize the Second Annual Fair Use Week, with participation from many more institutions. ARL also launched an official Fair Use Week website, which was transferred from Pia Hunter, who attended the Library Code of Best Practices Capstone Event and had originally purchased the domain name fairuseweek.org.
Depoorter. Ben. Parisi, Francesco. 2002. Fair Use and Copyright Protection: A Price Theory Explanation. International Review of Law and Economics. 21. 4. 453–473. 10.1016/S0144-8188(01)00071-0. yes. https://web.archive.org/web/20060914153848/http://www.gmu.edu/departments/law//faculty/papers/docs/01-03.pdf. September 14, 2006. mdy-all.
Gordon. Wendy J.. 1982. Fair Use as Market Failure: A Structural and Economic Analysis of the 'Betamax' Case and Its Predecessors. Columbia Law Review. 82. 8. 1600–1657. 10.2307/1122296. 1122296.
Book: Aufderheide. Patricia. Jaszi. Peter. Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright. 2011. University of Chicago Press. 0226032280. 10-11. 16 April 2018.
Gyles v Wilcox. 3. Atk. 143;26 ER 489. Court of Chancery (England). 1740. http://copy.law.cam.ac.uk/cam/pdf/uk_1741_1.pdf.
Folsom v. Marsh. 9. F. Cas.. 342. No. 4901. C.C.D. Mass.. 1841. http://www.yalelawtech.org/wp-content/uploads/FolsomvMarsh1841.pdf. https://web.archive.org/web/20160303234210/http://www.yalelawtech.org/wp-content/uploads/FolsomvMarsh1841.pdf. March 3, 2016. 2017-02-15.
Netanei. Neil Weinstock. Making Sense of Fair Use. Lewis & Clark Law Review. 2011. 15. 3. 715. 16 April 2018.
Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126, 1133 (9th Cir. 2015).
Folsom v. Marsh and Its Legacy. Journal of Intellectual Property Law. 1998-04-01. L. Ray. Patterson. 5. 2. 431–452. PDF. 2011-03-06.
Samuelson. Pamela. Unbundling Fair Uses. Fordham Law Review. 2009. 77. November 18, 2015.
Leval. Pierre N.. 1990. Toward a Fair Use Standard. Harvard Law Review. 103. 5. 1105–1136. 10.2307/1341457. 1341457.
Blanch v. Koons. 467. F.3d. 244. 2d Cir.. 2006-10-26. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1374144.html. 2015-11-15.
Book: Aufderheide. Patricia. Jaszi. Peter. Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright. 2011. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. Appendix D: Myths and Realities About Fair Use.
Web site: If you publish Georgia's state laws, you'll get sued for copyright and lose. Ars Technica. March 30, 2017.
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.. 510. U.S.. 569. 584. 1994. https://advance.lexis.com/api/permalink/a5fa374f-da05-4ac4-8da7-152a0b0828b4/?context=1000516.
Salinger v. Random House, Inc.. 811. F.2d. 90. 2d Cir.. 1987. https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/811_F2d_90.htm. 2015-11-18.
Video Pipeline v. Buena Vista. 342. F.3d. 191. 3d Cir.. 2000-09-19. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11920632898766723981&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr. 2015-11-16.
Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services. 99. F.3d. 1381. 6th Cir.. 1996. https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/99_F3d_1381.htm. 2015-11-16.
See USC October 17, 1008, amended by the Audio Home Recording Act.
Wall Data v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept (9th Cir. May 17, 2006) (PDF at Ninth Circuit).
Web site: Anderson. Nate. Harvard prof tells judge that P2P filesharing is "fair use". Ars Technica. 2009-05-18. 2009-06-16.
Web site: Anderson. Nate. Lawyer: RIAA must pay back all "$100M+" it has allegedly collected. Ars Technica. 2009-05-22. 2009-06-16.
Web site: Engle. Eric. Sony BMG Music Entertainment et al. v. Tannenbaum. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. 2009-10-17. 2009-06-16. https://web.archive.org/web/20100708094531/http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/copyright/sony-bmg-music-entertainment-et-al-v-tannenbaumbaum. July 8, 2010. yes. mdy-all.
News: Bob. Egelko. Woman can sue over YouTube clip de-posting. San Francisco Chronicle. August 21, 2008. 2015-11-16.
News: Righthaven v. Hoehn (District Court of Nevada). June 20, 2011. 2016-04-02.
News: Righthaven v. Hoehn (9th Circuit). May 9, 2013. 2016-04-02.
Madison. Michael J.. A Pattern-Oriented Approach to Fair Use. William and Mary Law Review. 2004. 45. November 16, 2015.
Web site: Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use. Center for Media & Social Impact. 2015-11-18.
Web site: Code of Best Practices in Fair Use. Association of Research Libraries. 2015-11-18.
Web site: Statement on the Fair Use of Images for Teaching, Research, and Study. Visual Resources Association. 2015-11-18. PDF.
Web site: The International Communication Association. Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Scholarly Research in Communication. Center for Media and Social Impact. November 16, 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20151116140807/http://www.cmsimpact.org/fair-use/best-practices/code-best-practices-fair-use-scholarly-research-communication. 2015-11-16.
Web site: Success of Fair Use Consensus Documents. Center for Social Media. 2013-09-02.
Book: Aufderheide. Patricia. Jaszi. Peter. Reclaiming Fair Use: How to Put Balance Back in Copyright. 2011. University of Chicago Press. Chicago. 9780226032283.
Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records Inc.. 780. F. Supp.. 182. S.D.N.Y.. 1991.
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films. 230. F.Supp.2d. 841.
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films. 383. F.3d. 390. 398. 6th Cir.. 2004. http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/6th/04a0297p.html. 2015-11-18.
Mattel Inc v. Walking Mountain Productions. 353. F.3d. 792. 9th Cir.. Dec 29, 2003. https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F3/353/353.F3d.792.01-57193.01-56695.html. 2015-11-15.
Rogers v. Koons. 960. F.2d. 301. 2d Cir.. Apr 2, 1992. http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/960/960.F2d.301.91-7396.91-7540.91-7442.234.235.html. 2015-11-15.
News: Rosati. Eleonora. A Closer Look at the Google Books Library Project Decision. November 15, 2014. The IPKAT. November 17, 2013.
Web site: Google's Fair Use Victory. Law Down Under. November 16, 2015.
Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust. 902. F.Supp.2d. 445. S.D.N.Y.. 2012-10-10. http://www.tc.umn.edu/~nasims/HathivAG10_10_12.pdf. 2015-11-16.
News: Anderson. Rick. The Authors Guild Loses (Again), and HathiTrust Wins–But What Does It Mean?. November 15, 2014. the scholarly kitchen. July 21, 2014.
Web site: Coders' Rights Project Reverse Engineering FAQ. Electronic Frontier Foundation. November 16, 2015.
Web site: Artist Richard Prince Sells Instagram Photos That Aren't His For $90K. Sola. Katie. May 27, 2015. The Huffington Post.
Web site: International exemptions for education with links to relevant laws. Teflpedia.com. 2009-05-25. 2009-06-16.
Web site: The Fair Use/Fair Dealing Handbook. infojustice.org. American University Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property. Jonathan. Band. Jonathan. Gerafi.
Geller. Paul. International Copyright Law and Practice. Matthew Bender & Co Inc. 2009.
News: Band. Jonathan. Israel now has the right copyright law. November 16, 2015. The Jerusalem Post. 2008-03-26. https://web.archive.org/web/20120128161746/http://fr.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1206446110027&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull. 2012-01-28.
Web site: The Football Association Premier League Ltd. v. Ploni and others. November 16, 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20100114175243/http://info1.court.gov.il/Prod03/ManamHTML5.nsf/03386E2BD41B4FF74225762500514826/$FILE/DC517C1BE60D537E42257486003ED1E6.html?OpenElement. 2010-01-14.
Web site: Lichtenstein. Yoram. Israeli Judge Permits Unlicensed Sports Event Streaming—FAPL v. Ploni (Guest Blog Post). Technology and Marketing Law Blog. November 16, 2015.
Web site: Dz.U.2016.666 t.j. – prawo.pl. December 30, 2016.
Web site: Kiedy możemy korzystać z prawa cytatu?. December 1, 2013. December 30, 2016.
News: Our copyright laws are holding us back, and there's a way out. Martin. Peter. 2016-12-15. The Sydney Morning Herald. 2017-02-06. https://web.archive.org/web/20161214223301/http://www.smh.com.au/comment/productivity-commission-to-say-fair-use-could-get-us-ahead-and-end-the-copyright-protection-racket-20161214-gtau3u.html. 2016-12-14. no.
Web site: Productivity Commission Draft IP Report – the breakdown. June 16, 2016. Australian Digital Alliance. March 7, 2017.
Web site: Reviews that have considered fair use. 2013-06-04. www.alrc.gov.au. Australian Law Reform Commission. 2017-03-08.
Web site: Magazines Canada. Why Canada Should Not Adopt Fair Use: A Joint Submission to the Copyright Consultations. November 16, 2015. 2009-09-15. yes. https://web.archive.org/web/20160403000037/https://www.magazinescanada.ca/uploads/File/files/JOINT_SUBMISSION_FAIR_USE_final.pdf. April 3, 2016. mdy-all.
News: Masnick. Mike. Book Publishers Whine To USTR That It's Just Not Fair That Canada Recognizes Fair Dealing For Educational Purposes. November 16, 2015. Tech Dirt. 2015-05-28.
Web site: Exceptions to copyright. Gov.UK. Government of the United Kingdom. 16 April 2018. 18 November 2014.
News: Google, Others Contest Copyright Warnings. Sarah. McBride. Adam. Thompson. Wall Street Journal. 2007-08-01. 2015-11-16.
Web site: Computer and Communications Industry Association. "CCIA Members.". Ccianet.org. 2009-06-16. https://web.archive.org/web/20080331110104/http://www.ccianet.org/members.html. March 31, 2008. yes. mdy-all.
Web site: Computer and Communications Industry Association. "Fair Use Economy Represents One-Sixth of US GDP". September 12, 2007. Ccianet.org. 2007-09-12. 2009-06-16. https://web.archive.org/web/20080415213601/http://www.ccianet.org/artmanager/publish/news/First-Ever_Economic_Study_Calculates_Dollar_Value_of.shtml. April 15, 2008. yes. mdy-all.
Web site: About. Fair Use Week. November 18, 2015.
Web site: Fair Use Week 2015. November 16, 2015.
Web site: Courtney. Kyle K.. About Fair Use Week. Copyright at Harvard Library. November 18, 2015.
Web site: Clobridge. Abby. Every Week Is Fair Use Week. Information Today. December 29, 2016.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Fair use".

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.