What Is Fair Use and What Are the Activities That Is Exempted to Copyright Law

Notwithstanding the provisions of 17 U.S.C§ 106 and 17 U.S.C§ 106A, fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonograms or by other means specified in this section, does not constitute copyright infringement for purposes such as criticism, commentary, reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom instruction), science or research. Dar. In determining whether the use of a work in a particular case constitutes fair use, consider the following factors:[8] Producers or creators of parodies of a copyrighted work have been prosecuted for infringement for the purposes of their ridicule, although such use may be protected as fair use. These fair dealing cases distinguish between parodies that use a work to mock the work itself and satire or to comment on it or otherwise. The courts were more willing to grant fair use protection to parodies than to satires, but the end result in both circumstances will be related to the application of the four fair dealing factors. Two notable cases involving the photocopying of course materials rejected the fair dealing defence. [4] In both cases, however, the respondent was a commercial copying shop and the commercial nature of the use played an important role in the analysis. It is therefore not entirely clear how these precedents affect copying by a professor or university for non-profit educational purposes. In those cases, the extracts of the applicant`s material contained in the course files ranged from 14 to 110 pages in one case and between 17 and 95 pages in the other case, corresponding in one case to 5% to 25% of the works from which they were extracted, and in the other case to 5% to 30%. In assessing the third fair use factor, both tribunals concluded that these amounts had been weighed against the defendant. Both courts also found that the fourth factor weighed against the defendant, primarily because the plaintiffs had lost the licence fees for this copy.

Arguing that there is now a viable market for licensing photocopying excerpts for inclusion in course sets where this has not been the case in the past, one of these courts singled out a 1972 case in which an equally divided Supreme Court upheld a decision finding that photocopying journal articles by the National Library of Medicine constituted fair use. An agreement to prepare material for publication by Harvard should always include a provision stating that Harvard owns the copyright. This avoids future disputes over whether Harvard or the individual creator owns the rights to the work. The rules for using face-to-face documents provide more flexibility in copying, viewing, and distributing copyrighted material in the classroom. You can view or perform works in your classroom without obtaining permission or conduct a fair dealing assessment if your use meets these three criteria: Under applicable law, copyright protection begins when an eligible work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. (e.B. by writing them on paper or by recording them on film or hard disk. Contrary to popular belief, it is not necessary to register a work with the Copyright Office in Washington to protect it, nor to attach a copyright notice. Before answering this question, it should be noted that Harvard licenses a large number of journals and other copyrighted works for educational purposes.

If you wish to make copyrighted material available to students for ongoing use, you should know if the material is already authorized by Harvard before considering whether fair dealing applies or obtaining permission to reproduce the material. If the material is already licensed, you can link to the resource from the course website or provide students with a URL that allows them to access the material in electronic form and print a copy for personal use. To find out if a particular article or other work is available on Harvard`s licensed resources, see p.lib.harvard.edu/discovery/journals.html, and for instructions on how to link to those resources, see guides.library.harvard.edu/links. Alternatively, a copy of the material you wish to use may be publicly available on the Internet – e.B. via Google Scholar or a repository such as SSRN – in which case you may be able to link to it. See in general “What about links to other documents?” above. If the material is not available through Harvard`s licensed resources and is not otherwise available on the Internet, you may, under certain circumstances, copy and distribute the material for course use in accordance with the doctrine of fair dealing. In the Second Circuit decisions in Salinger v. Random House[22] and new Era Publications Int`l v. Henry Holt & Co,[23] the aspect of whether the copied work has already been published was considered decisive, with the original author having the right to control the circumstances of publication of his work or the preference not to publish at all, was adopted.

Justice Pierre N. Leval considers this incorporation of certain aspects of French artist moral rights into U.S. copyright law to be “bizarre and contradictory” because it sometimes grants greater protection to works created for private purposes that have little to do with the public objectives of copyright than for works whose copyright protection was originally conceived. [11] This is not to claim that unpublished works, or more specifically works that are not intended to be published, do not deserve legal protection, but that such protection should come from privacy laws rather than copyright laws. The fair use legislative provision was amended in response to these concerns by adding a final sentence: “The fact that a work is not published does not preclude a determination of fair use if such a determination is made taking into account all of the above factors.” The doctrine of “fair use” has its origins in the Anglo-American common law of the 18th and 19th centuries to prevent copyright law from being applied too rigidly and “stifles the very creativity that [copyright] law is supposed to promote.” [2] Although it was originally a common law doctrine, it was enshrined in legal law when the United States . . .