Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A key consideration in later fair use cases is the extent to which the use is transformative. In the 1994 decision Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc, [13] 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. [14]
Fair use; Likelihood of confusion Majority: Souter: Lanham Act: A defendant claiming fair use of a trademark does not have the burden of showing its use is not likely to cause confusion; Some consumer confusion regarding the origin of the goods or services is compatible with the fair use of a trademark. American Needle, Inc. v. NFL: 560 U.S ...
The Supreme Court was the source of a number of concepts in the field, including fair use, the idea-expression divide, the useful articles or separability doctrine, and the uncopyrightability of federal documents.
Google claimed that these images constituted fair use, and the circuit court agreed. This was because they were "highly transformative." The court did not define what size a thumbnail should be but the examples the court cited was only 3% of the size of the original images. Most other major sites use a size not longer than 150 pixels on the ...
On March 7, 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court decided for the first time that a parody may be a copyright fair use. In the 25 years that followed, the High Court’s unanimous 9-0 ruling in Campbell v.
Rights holders must consider fair use before issuing a takedown notice. If the notice is issued in bad faith, the rights holder could be held liable for misrepresentation. A.V. ex rel.Vanderhye v. iParadigms LLC: 562 F.3d 630: 4th Cir. 2009 Commercial online database of student papers for plagiarism detection purposes was fair use MDY Industries v.
The Supreme Court ruled that Google’s use of 11,500 lines of code from Oracle software programming language was a “fair use,” a decision that may have implications for how copyrighted ...
The case was remanded to the District Court for a second trial, to consider whether Google's use was acceptable anyway, under the doctrine of fair use, since the original case had not brought out the facts related to fair use sufficiently for the Appeal Court to rule on that point. [43] [44]