# Talk:Gyles v Wilcox

Is it legally correct / fair to say that this case was instrumental in determining fair use (now associated with the US) without at all mentioning fair dealing? I don't know, just the though occurred to me whilst reading the article so I thought I'd better ask. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 19:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources on Gyles discuss fair dealing; they simply link it to fair abridgement, which they then subsequently link to fair use. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 14:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the outcome for the case is correct. The sources don't appear to fully substantiate the claim that the final ruling was that it was an infringement of Gyles' printing rights, and this article says that it was found to be a fair abridgment (more fully discussed in the author's full article linked at the top of the page).--iamseans (talk) 13:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gyles v Wilcox. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725200047/http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/showScreen/%22uk_1741_im_001_0001.jpg%22 to http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/showScreen/%22uk_1741_im_001_0001.jpg%22
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725200056/http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/showScreen/%22uk_1741b_im_001_0001.jpg%22 to http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/showScreen/%22uk_1741b_im_001_0001.jpg%22
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725200039/http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/ausgabeCom/%22uk_1741%22 to http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cgi-bin/kleioc/0010/exec/ausgabeCom/%22uk_1741%22
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The text as it stands implies fair use is a doctrine in the same jurisdiction as the one in which the case that's the subject of the article was decided, i.e. England. But this is incorrect: the doctrine does not exist today, rather the statutory fair dealing defence under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is available instead. The situation is similar in other Commonwealth countries and Ireland. Was fair use ever part of English law? According to talk page sections above, the sources cited don't mention fair dealing. And it is implied by the article Fair use that the US doctrine arose from the Massachusetts case of Folsom v Marsh in 1841, and is an original creation of US case law (albeit now statutory). Hairy Dude (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2025 (UTC)