Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Additionally, the fair use defense to copyright infringement was codified for the first time in section 107 of the 1976 Act. Fair use was not a novel proposition in 1976, however, as federal courts had been using a common law form of the doctrine since the 1840s (an English version of fair use appeared much earlier).
Fair use is the use of limited amounts of copyrighted material in such a way as to not be an infringement. It is codified at 17 U.S.C. § 107, and states that "the fair use of a copyrighted work ... is not an infringement of copyright." The section lists four factors that must be assessed to determine whether a particular use is fair.
The Supreme Court held that 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of § 107. Justice Souter began by describing the inherent tension created by the need to simultaneously protect copyrighted material and allow others to build upon it, quoting Lord Ellenborough: "While I shall think myself bound to secure every man in the enjoyment of his copyright, one must not ...
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 the District of Nevada ruled in Righthaven v.
Marsh case is regarded as establishing the principle of fair use in American copyright law. Lyman Ray Patterson excoriated the decision as "the worst intellectual property opinion ever written", critiquing both Judge Story's logic and the outcome – the expansion of the copyright, and the shift in reasoning from a limited monopoly exception ...
Chief Judge Juan R. Torruella wrote the opinion finding the first, second and third factor to be in favor of fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 and the decision was affirmed. For the first factor of fair use, purpose and character of use, the court stated that Caribbean International News Corp. use inform and "gain commercially," and that the two ...
Columbia Pictures did not contend that in-home use infringes their copyright. It argued that the exhibition or showing of the video cassettes in private booths constituted an unauthorized public performance. In turn, this violated Columbia Pictures' exclusive rights under federal copyright laws. [1]
It covers enforcement too. A person accused of copyright infringement cannot be prosecuted in state courts. [23] [24] State copyright law is not preempted by non-protected works. For example, those that have "not been fixed in any tangible medium of expression are not covered."