What Government copyright office says is fair use

[Robert A Whit]

Pulled from the Federal copyright office site on fair use.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code (http://www.copyright.gov/title17)). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” The doctrine of fair use has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years and has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair.


The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work


The distinction between what is fair use and what is infringement in a particular case will not always be clear or easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”
Copyright protects the particular way authors have expressed themselves. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in a work.
The safest course is to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, you should consider avoiding the use of copyrighted material unless you are confident that the doctrine of fair use would apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine whether a particular use may be considered fair nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

FL-102, Reviewed June 2012

[Marcus Aurelius]

You have GOT to be fucking kidding me!!!!!!



If THIS thread isn't proof Robert is a delusional, narcissistic wackjob, I don't know what is. He's been smacked around on this subject for days, whining and crying that he's unfairly treated and should be allowed to post without links to his source material. Instead of taking his lumps and dealing, he decides to start yet ANOTHER fucking thread on it.

When will the lunacy end???

[aboutime]

You have GOT to be fucking kidding me!!!!!!



If THIS thread isn't proof Robert is a delusional, narcissistic wackjob, I don't know what is. He's been smacked around on this subject for days, whining and crying that he's unfairly treated and should be allowed to post without links to his source material. Instead of taking his lumps and dealing, he decides to start yet ANOTHER fucking thread on it.

When will the lunacy end???




Marcus. We just have to accept that what we are constantly seeing are the obvious signs of ...dare I say...dementia?
My 94 year old Mother in Law seems to have slipped a bit. Reminding me of some of the posts WE are seeing here.
Of course. It is probably Well Intentioned, and just Typical for some to ignore what others tell them, and simply carry-on, as if nobody else exists in many cases.
As Jim, and others have reminded us. DP is probably the one, and only place where some happiness falls into otherwise monotonous lives.
Hopefully. I have a few more years to enjoy coming here before anything like that SETS IN.

Just wait and see what kind of response MY WORDS ABOVE draw. It may be shocking.

[logroller]

You have GOT to be fucking kidding me!!!!!!



If THIS thread isn't proof Robert is a delusional, narcissistic wackjob, I don't know what is. He's been smacked around on this subject for days, whining and crying that he's unfairly treated and should be allowed to post without links to his source material. Instead of taking his lumps and dealing, he decides to start yet ANOTHER fucking thread on it.

When will the lunacy end???


Would have ended sooner had you not responded. Just saying.

[logroller]

Marcus. We just have to accept that what we are constantly seeing are the obvious signs of ...dare I say...dementia?
My 94 year old Mother in Law seems to have slipped a bit. Reminding me of some of the posts WE are seeing here.
Of course. It is probably Well Intentioned, and just Typical for some to ignore what others tell them, and simply carry-on, as if nobody else exists in many cases.
As Jim, and others have reminded us. DP is probably the one, and only place where some happiness falls into otherwise monotonous lives.
Hopefully. I have a few more years to enjoy coming here before anything like that SETS IN.

Just wait and see what kind of response MY WORDS ABOVE draw. It may be shocking.
Pot calling the kettle cheese on toast.

[jimnyc]

Pulled from the Federal copyright office site on fair use.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code (http://www.copyright.gov/title17)).

This is the exact code as provided to you in the other thread. Curious mostly, but since this was covered already, what are you trying to accomplish, if anything?

[hjmick]

This is the exact code as provided to you in the other thread. Curious mostly, but since this was covered already, what are you trying to accomplish, if anything?


Well obviously the other thread was wrong... Someone else must have posted the information...

[Voted4Reagan]

please dont feed the troll

[aboutime]

Pot calling the kettle cheese on toast.


Whatever you say Log. Whatever you say. Gotta keep the kiddies happy. So...SMILE.

[Robert A Whit]

Using the link I provided, found a bit more.

Clearly at no time did I violate copyright rules and used it per provisions called fair use.

Nobody can allege it was for my profit.

By the way, were I jim, my question would be to some posters, why are they angry or acting as if posting the law is trolling? Logroller .... great catch my friend.

This goes a bit deeper and came from the government site.



§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#1-40)Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106) and 106A, (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a) 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 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 is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality 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.
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.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Using the link I provided, found a bit more.

Clearly at no time did I violate copyright rules and used it per provisions called fair use.

Nobody can allege it was for my profit.

By the way, were I jim, my question would be to some posters, why are they angry or acting as if posting the law is trolling? Logroller .... great catch my friend.

This goes a bit deeper and came from the government site.



§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#1-40)

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106) and 106A, (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a) 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 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 is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality 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.
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.


aaaaaaaaauuurrggggggggghh
aaaaaaaaauuurrggggggggghh
aaaaaaaaauuurrggggggggghh
aaaaaaaaauuurrggggggggghh
aaaaaaaaauuurrggggggggghh
aaaaaaaaauuurrggggggggghhF
FUCKING DROP IT YOU NARCISSISTIC FREAK!!

YOU GOT SMACKED DOWN REPEATEDLY ALREADY.

[jimnyc]

Using the link I provided, found a bit more.

Clearly at no time did I violate copyright rules and used it per provisions called fair use.

Nobody can allege it was for my profit.

By the way, were I jim, my question would be to some posters, why are they angry or acting as if posting the law is trolling? Logroller .... great catch my friend.

This goes a bit deeper and came from the government site.



§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#1-40)

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106) and 106A, (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a) 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 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 is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality 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.
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.

Fair use just means it IS able to be shared in part. You STILL have to give a citation every time you do use something based on fair use. This has been explained to you by multiple people now. You DID violate copyright by not citing a source, and the recent incident wasn't the first time. Regardless, a few of us politely told you how the law is addressed and why you should leave a link And even regardless of that, it doesn't matter if one does read the act improperly, it's STILL a rule of this board. So why are you even bringing this up still?

[aboutime]

Fair use just means it IS able to be shared in part. You STILL have to give a citation every time you do use something based on fair use. This has been explained to you by multiple people now. You DID violate copyright by not citing a source, and the recent incident wasn't the first time. Regardless, a few of us politely told you how the law is addressed and why you should leave a link And even regardless of that, it doesn't matter if one does read the act improperly, it's STILL a rule of this board. So why are you even bringing this up still?



jimnyc: There is only ONE WAY to solve this. Do you happen to know SIGN LANGUAGE, used for the Deaf?

If not. Sounds like THAT language is quite possibly. The One, and Only language to use in solving this problem.

Someone needs to read "THIS IS A RULE OF "THIS" BOARD.

I Thought this might help Robert...... 5116 . Notice...the middle finger alone WOULD SUFFICE.

[logroller]

Using the link I provided, found a bit more.

Clearly at no time did I violate copyright rules and used it per provisions called fair use.

Nobody can allege it was for my profit.

By the way, were I jim, my question would be to some posters, why are they angry or acting as if posting the law is trolling? Logroller .... great catch my friend.

This goes a bit deeper and came from the government site.



§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#1-40)

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106) and 106A, (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a) 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 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 is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality 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.
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.
i have requested reproduction permission more than a time or two and can say most copyright owners are amenable to any and all distribution so long as credit is noted.
I think subsection (3) is where I'd hang my hat if I were to argue the point of fair use, but the simple fact of the matter is adding a link isn't all that hard to do and would assuage any criticisms on the matter. Lets not get all argumentative over something so easily solved with 5 clicks of a mouse.

[jimnyc]

i have requested reproduction permission more than a time or two and can say most copyright owners are amenable to any and all distribution so long as credit is noted.
I think subsection (3) is where I'd hang my hat if I were to argue the point of fair use, but the simple fact of the matter is adding a link isn't all that hard to do and would assuage any criticisms on the matter. Lets not get all argumentative over something so easily solved with 5 clicks of a mouse.


As have I, more than once. But my scare was when a legit newspaper/author contacted me and seemed a tad pissed and ranted about copyrights/lawsuits. Even if I could somehow prevail, I'm confident that any costs involved would be kinda high. I'm confident that the community, or more in particular, the violators, aren't going to pony up for any defense funds, so it's best to stay within guidelines and just be proactive in preventing any issues.

[Robert A Whit]

i have requested reproduction permission more than a time or two and can say most copyright owners are amenable to any and all distribution so long as credit is noted.
I think subsection (3) is where I'd hang my hat if I were to argue the point of fair use, but the simple fact of the matter is adding a link isn't all that hard to do and would assuage any criticisms on the matter. Lets not get all argumentative over something so easily solved with 5 clicks of a mouse.

You are correct and I told the staff yesterday that I will always include links to sources.

[jimnyc]

This issue has obviously been resolved, no reason to leave the thread open and have fights as a result.