89-609: The Copyright and Information Society Directive 2001 ( 2001/29 ) is a directive in European Union law that was enacted to implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty and to harmonise aspects of copyright law across Europe, such as copyright exceptions . The directive was first enacted in 2001 under the internal market provisions of the Treaty of Rome . The draft directive was subject to unprecedented lobbying and
178-697: A prima facie case can be defeated without relying on fair use. For instance, the Audio Home Recording Act establishes that it is legal, using certain technologies, to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use. Some copyright owners claim infringement even in circumstances where the fair use defense would likely succeed, in hopes that the user will refrain from the use rather than spending resources in their defense. Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) cases that allege copyright infringement, patent infringement, defamation, or libel may come into conflict with
267-483: A thumbnail in online search results did not even weigh against fair use, "if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use". 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 ,
356-408: A Fair Use Standard . Blanch v. Koons is another example of a fair use case that focused on transformativeness. In 2006, Jeff Koons used a photograph taken by commercial photographer Andrea Blanch in a collage painting. Koons appropriated a central portion of an advertisement she had been commissioned to shoot for a magazine. Koons prevailed in part because his use was found transformative under
445-520: A directive in theory but has failed to abide by its provisions in practice. If a Member State fails to implement a Directive timely or correctly, the Directive itself becomes binding on the Member States, meaning that parties in proceedings against the state may rely on provisions of the untimely or incorrectly transposed Directive. An example of a case in which the applicant was able to invoke
534-423: A fair use defense would likely succeed. The simple reason is that the license terms negotiated with the copyright owner may be much less expensive than defending against a copyright suit, or having the mere possibility of a lawsuit threaten the publication of a work in which a publisher has invested significant resources. Fair use rights take precedence over the author's interest. Thus the copyright holder cannot use
623-491: A message," and that he was not "trying to create anything with a new meaning or a new message." However, the artist's intended message "is not dispositive." Instead, the focus of the transformative use inquiry is how the artworks will "reasonably be perceived". The transformativeness inquiry is a deceptively simple test to determine whether a new work has a different purpose and character from an original work. However, courts have not been consistent in deciding whether something
712-612: A negotiated settlement. In August 2008, Judge Jeremy Fogel of the Northern District of California ruled in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material. The case involved Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania , who made a home video of her thirteen-month-old son dancing to Prince's song " Let's Go Crazy " and posted
801-501: A network transmission or legal use. Hence internet service providers are not liable for the data they transmit, even if it infringes copyright. The other limitations are optional, with Member States choosing which they give effect to in national laws. Article 5(2) allows Member States to establish copyright exceptions to the Article 2 reproduction right in cases of: Article 5(3) allows Member States to establish copyright exceptions to
890-448: A non-binding disclaimer, or notification, to revoke the right of fair use on works. However, binding agreements such as contracts or licence agreements may take precedence over fair use rights. The practical effect of the fair use doctrine is that a number of conventional uses of copyrighted works are not considered infringing. For instance, quoting from a copyrighted work in order to criticize or comment upon it or teach students about it,
979-506: A non-profit educational website that reproduces whole articles from technical magazines will probably be found to infringe if the publisher can demonstrate that the website affects the market for the magazine, even though the website itself is non-commercial. Fair use is decided on a case-by-case basis, on the entirety of circumstances. The same act done by different means or for a different purpose can gain or lose fair use status. The Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc. case revolves around
SECTION 10
#17327913205891068-809: A regulation (without requiring member states to implement the directive), the desire for subsidiarity was paramount, so a directive was the chosen vehicle. The legal basis for the enactment of directives is Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (formerly Article 249 TEC ). Article 288 To exercise the Union's competences, the institutions shall adopt regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions. A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. A directive shall be binding, as to
1157-583: A regulation: (i) it complies with the EU's desire for "subsidiarity" ; (ii) it acknowledges that different member States have different legal systems, legal traditions and legal processes; and (iii) each Member State has leeway to choose its own statutory wording, rather than accepting the Brussels' official " Eurospeak " terminology. For example, while EU Directive 2009/20/EC (which simply requires all vessels visiting EU ports to have P&I cover) could have been
1246-434: A separate two-volume work of his own. The court rejected the defendant's fair use defense with the following explanation: [A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede
1335-562: A similar defense. However, the Court in the case at bar rejected the idea that file-sharing is fair use. A U.S. court case from 2003, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. , provides and develops the relationship between thumbnails , inline linking , and fair use. In the lower District Court case on a motion for summary judgment , Arriba Soft's use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba Soft's image search engine
1424-739: A use from being found fair, even though it makes it less likely. Likewise, the noncommercial purpose of a use makes it more likely to be found a fair use, but it does not make it a fair use automatically. For instance, in L.A. Times v. Free Republic , the court found that the noncommercial use of Los Angeles Times content by the Free Republic website was not fair use, since it allowed the public to obtain material at no cost that they would otherwise pay for. Richard Story similarly ruled in Code Revision Commission and State of Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org , Inc. that despite
1513-524: A user can upload data. The second proposed that news publishers should benefit financially when links to their articles are posted on a commercial platform. Responding to criticism, Axel Voss admitted that the law was "maybe not the best idea" but went on to support its passage and draft some of the language being used to amend Article 11. The update has been widely derided as a link tax . Its critics include German former MEP Felix Reda , Internet company Mozilla and copyright reform activists associated with
1602-472: A work against adverse criticism. As explained by Judge Leval, courts are permitted to include additional factors in their analysis. One such factor is acknowledgement of the copyrighted source. Giving the name of the photographer or author may help, but it does not automatically make a use fair. While plagiarism and copyright infringement are related matters, they are not identical. Plagiarism (using someone's words, ideas, images, etc. without acknowledgment)
1691-552: A work does not bar a finding of fair use. It simply makes the third factor less favorable to the defendant. For instance, in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. copying entire television programs for private viewing was upheld as fair use, at least when the copying is done for the purposes of time-shifting . In Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation , the Ninth Circuit held that copying an entire photo to use as
1780-561: Is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. The U.S. "fair use doctrine"
1869-434: Is a matter of professional ethics, while copyright is a matter of law, and protects exact expression, not ideas. One can plagiarize even a work that is not protected by copyright, for example by passing off a line from Shakespeare as one's own. Conversely, attribution prevents accusations of plagiarism, but it does not prevent infringement of copyright. For example, reprinting a copyrighted book without permission, while citing
SECTION 20
#17327913205891958-531: Is classified as an 'affirmative defense,' we hold—for the purposes of the DMCA—fair use is uniquely situated in copyright law so as to be treated differently than traditional affirmative defenses. We conclude that because 17 U.S.C. § 107 created a type of non-infringing use, fair use is "authorized by the law" and a copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification under § 512(c)." In June 2011, Judge Philip Pro of
2047-504: Is considered a fair use. Certain well-established uses cause few problems. A teacher who prints a few copies of a poem to illustrate a technique will have no problem on all four of the above factors (except possibly on amount and substantiality), but some cases are not so clear. All the factors are considered and balanced in each case: a book reviewer who quotes a paragraph as an example of the author's style will probably fall under fair use even though they may sell their review commercially; but
2136-475: Is generally broader than the " fair dealing " rights known in most countries that inherited English Common Law . The fair use right is a general exception that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works. In the U.S., fair use right/exception is based on a flexible proportionality test that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work. The doctrine of "fair use" originated in common law during
2225-556: Is prohibited. Under the DMCA, potential users who want to avail themselves of an alleged fair use privilege to crack copy protection (which is not prohibited) would have to do it themselves since no equipment would lawfully be marketed for that purpose. Under the Copyright Directive, this possibility would not be available since circumvention of copy protection is illegal. Member States had until 22 December 2002 to implement
2314-463: Is the extent to which the use is transformative . In the 1994 decision Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc , the U.S. Supreme Court held that when the purpose of the use is transformative, this makes the first factor more likely to favor fair use. Before the Campbell decision, federal Judge Pierre Leval argued that transformativeness is central to the fair use analysis in his 1990 article, Toward
2403-639: Is transformative. For instance, in Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc., 725 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2013), the court found that Green Day's use of Seltzer's copyrighted Scream Icon was transformative. The court held that Green Day's modifications to the original Scream Icon conveyed new information and aesthetics from the original piece. Conversely, the Second Circuit came to the opposite conclusion in a similar situation in Andy Warhol Foundation for
2492-593: Is undisputed that Hoehn posted the entire work in his comment on the Website. ... wholesale copying does not preclude a finding of fair use. ... there is no genuine issue of material fact that Hoehn's use of the Work was fair and summary judgment is appropriate." On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Righthaven did not even have the standing needed to sue Hoehn for copyright infringement in
2581-592: 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 (i.e. created by judges as a legal precedent ) doctrine in the U.S. until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976 , 17 U.S.C. § 107 . The term "fair use" originated in
2670-583: The Creative Commons . Some discussion has concerned the inability for news agencies to opt out of the payment system and the claim that ancillary rights for news snippets contradicts the Berne convention . Directive (European Union) A directive is a legal act of the European Union that requires member states to achieve particular goals without dictating how the member states achieve those goals. A directive's goals have to be made
2759-646: The District of Nevada ruled in Righthaven v. Hoehn that the posting of an entire editorial article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal in a comment as part of an online discussion was unarguably fair use. Judge Pro noted that "Noncommercial, nonprofit use is presumptively fair. ... Hoehn posted the Work as part of an online discussion. ... This purpose is consistent with comment, for which 17 U.S.C. § 107 provides fair use protection. ... It
Copyright and Information Society Directive 2001 - Misplaced Pages Continue
2848-584: The co-decision process, as contentious matters usually are) is prepared by the Commission after consultation with its own and national experts. The draft is presented to the Parliament and the Council —composed of relevant ministers of member governments, initially for evaluation and comment and then subsequently for approval or rejection. There are justifications for using a directive rather than
2937-540: The "reproduction right" (Article 2) from the right of "communication to the public" or "making available to the public" (Article 3): the latter is specifically intended to cover publication and transmission on the internet. The two names for the right derive from the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (Arts. 8 & 10 respectively). The related right for authors to authorise or prohibit any form of distribution to
3026-402: The 18th and 19th centuries as a way of preventing copyright law from being too rigidly applied and "stifling the very creativity which [copyright] law is designed to foster." Though originally a common law doctrine, it was enshrined in statutory law when the U.S. Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1976 . The U.S. Supreme Court has issued several major decisions clarifying and reaffirming
3115-746: The 1990s to add fair use cases to their dockets and concerns. These include the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), the American Civil Liberties Union , the National Coalition Against Censorship , the American Library Association , numerous clinical programs at law schools, and others. The " Chilling Effects " archive was established in 2002 as a coalition of several law school clinics and
3204-447: The Article 2 reproduction right and the Article 3 right of communication to the public in cases of: According to Article 5(5) copyright exceptions may only be "applied in certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work or other subject-matter and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the rightholder", therefore the directive confirms the Berne three-step test . Article 6 of
3293-542: The Copyright Act of 1976, which is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107 . They were intended by Congress to clarify rather than to 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
3382-865: The Copyright Directive into their national laws. However, only Greece and Denmark met the deadline, while Italy, Austria, Germany and the UK implemented the directive in 2003. The remaining eight Member States (Belgium, Spain, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Portugal, Finland and Sweden) were referred to the European Court of Justice for non-implementation. In 2004 Finland, the UK (with regards to Gibraltar ), Belgium and Sweden were held responsible for non-implementation. National implementation measures include: In 2016, leaked documents revealed that two new provisions were under consideration. The first, aimed at social media companies, sought to make automated screening for copyrighted content mandatory for all cases in which
3471-416: The Copyright Directive requires that Member States must provide "adequate legal protection" against the intentional circumvention of "effective technological measures" designed to prevent or restrict acts of copying not authorised by the rightholders of any copyright, related right or the sui generis right in databases ( preamble paragraph 47). Member States must also provide "adequate legal protection" against
3560-535: The EFF to document the use of cease and desist letters. In 2006 Stanford University began an initiative called the " Fair Use Project " (FUP) to help artists, particularly filmmakers, fight lawsuits brought against them by large corporations. Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody , news reporting, research, and scholarship. Fair use provides for
3649-604: The European Court of Justice developed the doctrine of direct effect where unimplemented or badly implemented directives can actually have direct legal force. In the important case of Francovich v. Italy , the ECJ extended the principle of Van Gend en Loos to provide that Member States who failed to implement a directive could incur liability to pay damages to individuals and companies who had been adversely affected by such non-implementation. Fair use Fair use
Copyright and Information Society Directive 2001 - Misplaced Pages Continue
3738-492: The Second Circuit in Cariou v. Prince , 714 F.3d 694 (2d. Cir. 2013) shed light on how transformative use is determined. "What is critical is how the work in question appears to the reasonable observer, not simply what an artist might say about a particular piece or body of work." The district court's conclusion that Prince's work was not transformative is partly based on Prince's deposition testimony that he "do[es]n't really have
3827-493: 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 fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. The court not only investigates whether
3916-588: The United States. Although related, the limitations and exceptions to copyright for teaching and library archiving in the U.S. are located in a different section of the statute. A similar-sounding principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions but in fact it is more similar in principle to the enumerated exceptions found under civil law systems. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright. In response to perceived over-expansion of copyrights, several electronic civil liberties and free expression organizations began in
4005-617: The Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 11 F.4th 26 (2d. Cir. 2021). In that case, the Warhol Foundation sought a declaratory judgment that Warhol's use of one of Goldsmith's celebrity photographs was fair use. The court held that Warhol's use was not transformative because Warhol merely imposed his own style on Goldsmith's photograph and retained the photograph's essential elements. Although the Supreme Court has ruled that
4094-437: The appropriate legislative procedure, both institutions can seek to make laws. There are Council directives and Commission directives. Article 288 does not clearly distinguish between legislative acts and administrative acts, as is normally done in national legal systems. Directives are binding only on the member states to whom they are addressed, which can be just one member state or a group of them. In general, however, with
4183-570: The artist) into American copyright law as "bizarre and contradictory" because it sometimes grants greater protection to works that were created for private purposes that have little to do with the public goals of copyright law, than to those works that copyright was initially conceived to protect. This is not to claim that unpublished works, or, more specifically, works not intended for publication, do not deserve legal protection, but that any such protection should come from laws about privacy, rather than laws about copyright. The statutory fair use provision
4272-434: The availability of copyright protection should not depend on the artistic quality or merit of a work, fair use analyses consider certain aspects of the work to be relevant, such as whether it is fictional or non-fictional. To prevent the private ownership of work that rightfully belongs in the public domain, facts and ideas are not protected by copyright —only their particular expression or fixation merits such protection. On
4361-429: 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
4450-406: The court clarified that this is not a "hard evidentiary presumption" and that even the tendency that commercial purpose will "weigh against a finding of fair use ... will vary with the context." The Campbell court held that hip-hop group 2 Live Crew 's parody of the song " Oh, Pretty Woman " was fair use, even though the parody was sold for profit. Thus, having a commercial purpose does not preclude
4539-457: The creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase the exposure of the originals. In looking at all these factors as a whole, the court found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a default judgment after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach
SECTION 50
#17327913205894628-454: The defendant's right to freedom of speech , and that possibility has prompted some jurisdictions to pass anti-SLAPP legislation that raises the plaintiff's burdens and risk. Although fair use ostensibly permits certain uses without liability, many content creators and publishers try to avoid a potential court battle by seeking a legally unnecessary license from copyright owners for any use of non-public domain material, even in situations where
4717-474: The defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original. The burden of proof here rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work. For example, in Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios , the copyright owner, Universal , failed to provide any empirical evidence that
4806-495: The directive to be implemented correctly. This is done in approximately 99% of the cases. If a member state fails to pass the required national legislation, or if the national legislation does not adequately comply with the requirements of the directive, the European Commission may initiate legal action against the member state in the European Court of Justice . This may also happen when a member state has transposed
4895-450: The entertainment industry. This prompted him to invoke the fair use doctrine, which permits limited use of copyrighted material to provide analysis and criticism of published works. 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
4984-583: The exception of directives related to the Common Agricultural Policy , directives are addressed to all member states. When adopted, directives give member states a timetable for the implementation of the intended outcome. Occasionally, the laws of a member state may already comply with this outcome, and the state involved would be required only to keep its laws in place. More commonly, member states are required to make changes to their laws (commonly referred to as transposition ) in order for
5073-669: The fact that it is a non-profit and did not sell the work, the service profited from its unauthorized publication of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated because of "the attention, recognition, and contributions" it received in association with the work. Another factor is whether the use fulfills any of the preamble purposes, also mentioned in the legislation above, as these have been interpreted as "illustrative" of transformative use. In determining that Prince's appropriation art could constitute fair use and that many of his works were transformative fair uses of Cariou's photographs,
5162-498: The factors to be considered shall include: The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. The four factors of analysis for fair use set forth above derive from the opinion of Joseph Story in Folsom v. Marsh , in which the defendant had copied 353 pages from the plaintiff's 12-volume biography of George Washington in order to produce
5251-532: The fair use doctrine since the 1980s, the most recent being in the 2021 decision Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. The 1710 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 ,
5340-404: The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use
5429-830: The film in a history book on the subject in Time Inc v. Bernard Geis Associates . In the decisions of the Second Circuit in Salinger v. Random House and in New Era Publications Int'l v. Henry Holt & Co , the aspect of whether the copied work has been previously published was considered crucial, assuming the right of the original author to control the circumstances of the publication of his work or preference not to publish at all. However, Judge Pierre N. Leval views this importation of certain aspects of France's droit moral d'artiste ( moral rights of
SECTION 60
#17327913205895518-503: 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
5607-402: The first fair use factor. The Campbell case also addressed the subfactor mentioned in the quotation above, "whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." In an earlier case, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. , the Supreme Court had stated that "every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively ... unfair." In Campbell ,
5696-458: The four statutory factors. The first factor is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. In the 1841 copyright case Folsom v. Marsh , Justice Joseph Story wrote: "[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from
5785-420: The goals of one or more new or changed national laws by the member states before this legislation applies to individuals residing in the member states. Directives normally leave member states with a certain amount of leeway as to the exact rules to be adopted. Directives can be adopted by means of a variety of legislative procedures depending on their subject matter. The text of a draft directive (if subject to
5874-419: The greater discussion. The case was settled and a potential multimillion-dollar lawsuit was avoided. This Film Is Not Yet Rated also relied on fair use to feature several clips from copyrighted Hollywood productions. The director had originally planned to license these clips from their studio owners but discovered that studio licensing agreements would have prohibited him from using this material to criticize
5963-422: The legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor test . The U.S. Supreme Court has traditionally characterized fair use as an affirmative defense , but in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (2015) (the "dancing baby" case), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that fair use was not merely a defense to an infringement claim, but
6052-508: The manufacture, import, distribution, sale, rental, advertisement, or possession "for commercial purposes of devices, products or components or the provision of services which": In the absence of rightsholders taking voluntary measures the Directive provides that Member States must ensure that technological measures do not prevent uses permitted under Article 5 on copyright exceptions , see Article 6(4). Article 7 requires that Member States must provide "adequate legal protection" against
6141-480: The mobile market. However, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision, deciding that Google's actions satisfy all four tests for fair use, and that granting Oracle exclusive rights to use Java APIs on mobile markets "would interfere with, not further, copyright's basic creativity objectives." In April 2006, the filmmakers of the Loose Change series were served with a lawsuit by Jules and Gédéon Naudet over
6230-578: The music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair use of the song. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a copyright owner must affirmatively consider whether the complained of conduct constituted fair use before sending a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, rather than waiting for the alleged infringer to assert fair use. 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015). "Even if, as Universal urges, fair use
6319-438: The original artwork was. Second, the photographs had already been published, diminishing the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by
6408-464: The original author, would be copyright infringement but not plagiarism. The U.S. Supreme Court described fair use as an affirmative defense in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. This means that in litigation on copyright infringement, the defendant bears the burden of raising and proving that the use was fair and not an infringement. Thus, fair use need not even be raised as a defense unless
6497-422: The original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy ." A key consideration in later fair use cases
6586-403: The other hand, the social usefulness of freely available information can weigh against the appropriateness of copyright for certain fixations. The Zapruder film of the assassination of President Kennedy , for example, was purchased and copyrighted by Time magazine. Yet its copyright was not upheld, in the name of the public interest, when Time tried to enjoin the reproduction of stills from
6675-482: The plaintiff first shows (or the defendant concedes) a prima facie case of copyright infringement. If the work was not copyrightable, the term had expired, or the defendant's work borrowed only a small amount , for instance, then the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case of infringement, and the defendant need not even raise the fair use defense. In addition, fair use is only one of many limitations, exceptions, and defenses to copyright infringement. Thus,
6764-754: The provisions of an untimely transposed Directive is the Verkooijen case, in which the European Court of Justice rendered a judgement on 6 June 2000 (case no. C-35/98). The United Kingdom passed a statutory instrument , the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 , to implement the EU Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive 1993 . For reasons that are not clear, the 1994 SI
6853-591: The public by sale or otherwise is provided for in Article 4 ( exhaustion rights ). Article 5 lists the copyright exceptions which Member States may apply to copyright and related rights. The restrictive nature of the list was one source of controversy over the directive: in principle, Member States may only apply exceptions which are on the agreed list, although other exceptions which were already in national laws on 2001-06-22 may remain in force [Article 5(3)(o)]. The Copyright Directive makes only one exception obligatory: transient or incidental copying as part of
6942-535: The removal of rights management information metadata . Unlike Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act , which only prohibits circumvention of access control measures, the Copyright Directive also prohibits circumvention of copy protection measures, making it potentially more restrictive. In both the DMCA and the Copyright Directive, production, distribution etc. of equipment used to circumvent both access and copy-protection
7031-459: The result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods. A decision shall be binding in its entirety upon those to whom it is addressed. Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force. The Council can delegate legislative authority to the Commission and, depending on the area and
7120-442: The results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright" has helped modulate this emphasis in interpretation. In evaluating the fourth factor, courts often consider two kinds of harm to the potential market for the original work. Courts recognize that certain kinds of market harm do not negate fair use, such as when a parody or negative review impairs the market of the original work. Copyright considerations may not shield
7209-466: The use of Betamax had either reduced their viewership or negatively impacted their business. In Harper & Row, the case regarding President Ford's memoirs, the Supreme Court labeled the fourth factor "the single most important element of fair use" and it has enjoyed some level of primacy in fair use analyses ever since. Yet the Supreme Court's more recent announcement in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc that "all [four factors] are to be explored, and
7298-597: 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 operating system to support the mobile device market. Oracle had sued Google in 2010 over both patent and copyright violations, but after two cycles,
7387-425: The use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy ... In short, we must often ... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work. The statutory fair use factors quoted above come from
7476-548: The video on YouTube . Four months later, Universal Music , the owner of the copyright to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act . Lenz notified YouTube immediately that her video was within the scope of fair use, and she demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after six weeks, rather than the two weeks required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for her legal costs, claiming
7565-453: Was amended in response to these concerns by adding a final sentence: "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." The third factor assesses the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that has been used. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely the use will be considered fair. Using most or all of
7654-429: Was an expressly authorized right, and an exception to the exclusive rights granted to the author of a creative work by copyright law: "Fair use is therefore distinct from affirmative defenses where a use infringes a copyright, but there is no liability due to a valid excuse, e.g., misuse of a copyright." Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A ,
7743-426: Was considered a success for Europe's copyright laws. The 2001 directive gave EU Member States significant freedom in certain aspects of transposition . Member States had until 22 December 2002 to transpose the directive into their national laws, although only Greece and Denmark met the deadline. Articles 2–4 contain definitions of the exclusive rights granted to under copyright and related rights . They distinguish
7832-437: Was deemed inadequate and was repealed and replaced by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 . The Consumer Rights Act 2015 , a major United Kingdom statute consolidating consumer rights, then abolished the 1999 SI; so presumably the 2015 Act complies with the 1993 EU directive, which remains extant. Even though directives were not originally thought to be binding before they were implemented by member states,
7921-600: Was found not to be fair use. That decision was appealed and contested by Internet rights activists such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation , who argued that it was fair use. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant, Arriba Soft. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the statutory four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution as
#588411