Copyright, Fairuse, etc
See also:  [Art History] (index)
           [Literature Index]
           [Time Line]

           [Censorship] (and the 1st amendment!)
           (tips towels 5 times to the founding fathers and mothers and children)
        
Copyright, Fairuse, etc

REF: "Cyberlaw: The Law of the Internet", by Jonathan Rosenoer,
ISBN 0.387.94832.5 (Springer!, Kentfield, Calif, 1996),
LCCN KF.390.5.C6.R668.1997, Pp.16-18.

This is a superb reference work, every library in the world
should have a copy!

BEGIN BLOCK QUOTE
P.16

Section L. Fair Use

As described by the U.S. Supreme Court, "[f]"air use was
traditionally defvined as 'a privlige in others than the 
owner of the copyright to use the copyrighted material in
a reasonable manner without his [!] consent." [71] The 
fair use privlige is now codified as Section 107 of the 
Copyright Act:

   Not-with-standing the provisions of sections 106
   and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work,
   including such use by reproduction of copies or
   phono-records of by any [P.17] 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
   the factors to be considered shall include --

   1) the purpose and character of the use, including
      whether such use is of a commercial nature or
      for non-profit educational purposes;
   2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
   3) the amount and substatiality of the portion used
      in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; 
      and
   4) the effect of the use upon the potential market 
      for or value of the copyrighted work. [72]

Importantly, review of this non-exclusive list makes clear that 
simply copying a small portion of a work and acknowledging the
sources is not necessarily "fair use".

To invoke the fair use defence, a person must have an authorised
copy of the work.[73] A fair use claim may be denied where an 
original work has been copied but then transformed so that it 
no longer resembles the original. In certain instances, however,
such "intermediate" copying may be allowed to provide access to
un-protected ideas and processes.

In a case concerning the Internet posting of copies of published
and un-published works of the Church of Scientology by Dennis
Erlich, a former chruch memember, his claimed purpose was to
"evoke discussion regarding various Scientology philsophies".
The court accepted this claim, as there was "insufficient 
evidence to support plaintiffs' cl;aim tha Erlich's copying 
was made out of spite or for other destructive reasons...[75]
But the court noted despite his critical purpose, Erlich
did little other than to copy the Church's work. [76] And
[P.18] there was no evidence that Erlich personally financially,
or professionaly, as a result of the postings. The cout 
commented, "[I]f mere recognition by one's peerss constituted
"personal profit" to defeat a finding of a non-commercial
use, courts would seldom find any criticsm fair use and much
valuable ciriticsm would be discouraged." [77,loc cit].


Internal notes to the extract (original numbering from op.cit.

[71] Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises,
     471 US 539, 549, 85, L.Ed2d 588, 105 S.Ct.2218 (1985)

[72] 17 USC Section 107.

[73] See Atari Games Corp. vs. Nintendo of America, Inc,
     975 F.2d 832, 843 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sega Enters. v.
MAPHIA, 857 F.Supp. 679,687 (N.D. Cal. 1994)

[75] Religious Technolgoy Center vs Netcom On-Line 
     Communication Services, No.C-95-20091 RMW, Order 
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plantiffs' Applicatin
for a Preliminary Injunctino and Defendeant Erlich's Motion 
to Dessolve the TRO... (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 22, 1995). 

[76] According the Supreme Court, it is important to note
     whether the new work "adds something new, with a 
further purpose or different character, altering the 
first with new expression, meaning, or message. ..."
Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 114 S.Ct 1164, 171,
127 L.Ed2d.500 (1994).

END BLOCK QUOTE


NOTES BY PIZO

In the case of the Church of Scientology, it sounds like
the defence used a fairly flimsy excuse (evoking a critical 
dialog; and, again not knowing the details). The way that
the work was published and *not* at least required to 
provide a FORUM, etc. Does sound like it was with intent
to damage. It would be the same, as if some one in the
Knights of Columnbus (one of those main-stream religions
that is well and treuly accepted by mainstream, law-abidingg,
up-standing true-blue Amerikuns by Golly!) were to have some 
of its inner ceremonies, oaths, etc published. 

What sticks in my craw is that if you are outside the 
MAINSTREAM then you have essentially no rights. 

It should be born in mind that superbly good people like 
John Travolta belong to the Church of Scientology and 
there there are no end of conspiracy nuts trying to tie it
to everything from jihadists as well as (bizarely enough)
some sort of back-text for Star Trek!  (Fishes out copy
of FIRST AMENDMENT; yep: 

      CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING 
      AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, 
      OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; 
      OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, 
      OR OF THE PRESS; 
      OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY 
      TO ASSEMBLE, 
      AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR 
      A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES. 

Emphasis mine, (ducks under towel).


Chronology


A work composed entirely of copyrighted materials! 

 So [1] we [2] can [3] see [4] that [5]  there [6]...

[1] 
[2] Declaration of independence,
[3] Star Spangled banner,
[4] Ibid.
[5] 
[6] The Hobbit, JRR Tolkien.
...