Opinion ID: 760943
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used in Relation

Text: 32 to the Copyrighted Work as a Whole 33 The third factor, like the substantial similarity inquiry, calls for thought not only about quantity of the materials used, but about their quality and importance, too. Campbell, 510 U.S. at 587, 114 S.Ct. 1164. The district court found that the abstracts copied the crucial facts and ideas contained in the articles. While this is unquestionably the case, any focus on which particular facts were copied is improper. As we indicate above, it would have been possible under the law for Comline to abstract the most important facts from the Nikkei articles without infringing Nikkei's copyrights at all, let alone using them unfairly. Crucial facts are entitled to no more protection than ancillary ones. In applying the third factor, what is relevant is the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted expression that has been used, not the factual content of the material in the copyrighted works. Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90, 97 (2d Cir.1987). 34 We agree with the district court that this factor weighs against a finding of fair use. Just as the quantity of copying was sufficient to support a finding of substantial similarity for most of the challenged abstracts, the amount of copying of protectible expression tips this factor against fair use. See Ringgold, 126 F.3d at 75 & n. 4. 35