The Death of Fair Use

[Bombardier]

IMPORTANT -- The Death of Fair Use

EDITORIAL NOTE- Apparently, Reuters has decided that sites do not have the right to use any portion of their "news articles" without them giving prior permission. My understanding is that they will go after sites using even a paragraph or a portion of their content. To me, this is an attempt to completely eliminate "fair use" of news material by them, since the doctrine of "fair use" does not require prior authorization, and if a use is indeed "fair use" can be done even against the original providers protestations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"By Sean Michael Kerner

At a time of heightened awareness of corporate intellectual property, news service Reuters announced said it will use Fast Search & Transfer's (FAST) software to track copyright violations of its content. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Specifically, Oslo, Norway-based FAST will deploy its Search Derivative Application (SDA) for Reuters. The application will identify and log the use of Reuters content used online and in print media. In addition it will generate custom reports, flagging any potential violations.

"It is important to know as much as we can about how Reuters' copyrighted news content is being used by our subscribers, as well as the general public," Paul Hansford, global head of content quality at Reuters said in a statement. "We are looking forward to seeing how the implementation of FAST ESP will help us track copyright infringements and protect our corporate identity."

Reuters was already a FAST customer, using FAST ESP (Enterprise Search Platform) to power the Reuters News Distribution Service (NDS), a customized real-time news alert service. FAST spokesman Peter Gorman told internetnews.com that initial rollout will begin next month, with full implementation by summer.

The issue of copyright infringement on the Internet has long been an issue for content providers. News aggregation sites, RSS P2P networks and blogs seem to churn an almost endless supply of content and not all of it is copyright free."

PLEASE READ THE FULL ARTICLE AT:

http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3330381

==================================snip=========================================

Reuters is not the only news source who are getting really antagonistic about

use of "their" stories. Reuters has said even using a "paragraph" or "portion" of their articles without their express permission is going to be enough to set them off.

I recently talked about the "Hey Ya Charley Brown" video, getting a cease and desist letter.

What is happening in this country is the whole country is going copyright lawsuit happy. Yesterday, I personally posted lots of articles about things like Yoga Copyright Lawsuits and many other suits.

In my opinion, the suits are going farther and farther afield, with the apparent aim of eliminating any "fair use" of materials. Clearly, the guidelines which apparently Reuters intends to implement, go after legal fair use, and are trying to criminalize simple quotations of articles in a limited manner, with the aim of critical comment on that material, and this is just the kind of thing tha the fair use doctrine is meant to protect.

If you look at this link http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualpr...ty/copypol2.htm

you get a fairly good idea of what fair use is, and how one decides if a certain usage may qualify.

And, here's more on fair use :

From a British site, http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/16.68html

"US COPYRIGHT OFFICE CIRCULAR ON FAIR USE (1993)

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 120 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more

important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." Although fair use was

not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed

through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This

doctrine 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:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether

such use is of 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 distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not

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 an author has expressed himself; it

does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in

the work.

The safest course is always 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, use of copyrighted material

should be avoided unless the doctrine of "fair use" would clearly apply to

the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use

may be considered "fair" nor advise on possible copyright violations. If

there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

***Last update 6/10/93 (raa)***

-------------------- %== --------------------------

Another useful document is the following:

(DRAFT VERSION) COPYRIGHT LAW AND MULTIMEDIA DEVELOPMENT IN EDUCATION

Section 106 of the Copyrights Act (P.L. 94-553) describes the exclusive

rights of copyright owners.

"[T]he owner of copyright...has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize

any of the following:

1. To reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

2. To prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

3. To distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the

public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or

lending;

4. In the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,

pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the

copyrighted work publicly; and

5. In the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works,

pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the

individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display

the copyrighted work publicly."

The fair use provision of the Copyrights Act is found in Section 107 which is

reproduced below.

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, 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 legislative history which speaks to the fair use provision acknowledges:

"The judicial doctrine of fair use, one of the most important and well

established limitations on the exclusive right of copyright owners, would be

given express statutory recognition for the first time in section 107. The

claim that a defendant's acts constituted a fair use rather than an

infringement has been raised as a defense in innumerable copyright actions

over the years, and there is ample case law recognizing the existence of the

doctrine and applying it."

It should be noted that at this point, the legislative history reiterates the

four points listed above from section 107. Fair use must meet all four criteria

to be a protected activity.

"Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over

and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged. Indeed,

since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable

definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on

its own facts. On the other hand, the courts have evolved a set of criteria

which, though in no case definitive or determinative, provide some gauge for

balancing the equities. These criteria have been stated in various ways, but

essentially they can all be reduced to the four standards which have been

adopted in section 107...."

There are no definitive standards or guidelines governing the use of

copyrighted materials in the preparation of multimedia courseware for

instruction, or classroom presentations utilizing multimedia. However, while

developing these products, faculty should be governed by the same criteria

which are prescribed for the use of copyrighted print materials. In essence,

the use of copyrighted print materials is governed by three criteria:

Spontaneity: The "fair use" of copyrighted materials in an educational

setting should be at the "instance and inspiration of the individual

teacher...." Further, the "inspiration and decision to use the work and the

moment of its use for maximum teaching effectiveness" must be so close

together in time "that it would be unreasonable to expect a timely reply to

a request for permission." In other words, the decision to use the material

must be the instructor's and not dictated by management or administration

and it must be a spontaneous decision.

Brevity: With regard to print media, the guidelines are specific even to the

point of specifying the maximum length of an excerpt from poetry or prose.

Though these limits do not apply to non-print media, they clearly indicate

that the intent is for a small portion of the original to be copied under

fair use, and not a substantial portion of the work.

Cumulative Effect: "...copying of...material is for only one course in the

school in which the copies are made." The guidelines for copying of print

media, states "[n]ot more than one short poem, article, story, essay or two

excepts from the same author, nor more than three from the same collective

work or periodical volume during one class term" is permitted. Even though

the media may be different, faculty can best avoid copyright infringement by

following the spirit of these guidelines when dealing with other forms of

media in a multimedia presentation. For instance, using 8 minutes from a 10

minute video tape (in a multimedia presentation) would appear to violate the

fair use guidelines by diminishing the "potential market" and value of the

copyrighted work.

Instructors should be aware that when relying on the fair use provision, the

use of copyrighted materials must meet all three tests (spontaneity,

brevity, and cumulative effect). Instructors are encouraged to procure

copyright releases for materials which they anticipate using for longer than

one term.

Finally, the guidelines (developed by the Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright

Revision, the Author-Publisher Group, and the Association of American

Publishers) also indicate that

1. "Copying shall not be used to create or to replace or substitute for

anthologies, compilations, or collective works..."

2. Copying is not allowed from consumable works such as "workbooks,

exercises, standardized tests and test booklets and answer sheets...."

3. "Copying shall not substitute for the purchase of books, publisher's

reprints or periodicals...(and shall not) be repeated with respect to the

same item by the same teacher from term to term."

It should be noted that clip art, clip video, and clip audio are marketed

and available for use in developing multimedia materials. These forms of

"clip media" are licensed to the purchaser (individual, school, or faculty

member) for use in multimedia presentations. In many cases, clip media can

be used to substitute in a presentation for copyrighted materials that might

violate the fair use provision."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And...here's Reuters "Copyright Notice" from their site...

http://www.about.reuters.com/copyright.asp

"COPYRIGHT

© Reuters 2004. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

© Reuters 2004"

------------------------------SNIP-----------------------------------------

As an editor and writer, this new direction of content providers trying to eliminate ANY fair use of their materials, is VERY disturbing, and as I have said, Reuters is NOT the only source which is getting upset about use of their content. In fact, a few of the best sources of news relative to our issues are assuming this kind of stance, which is very problematic.

I look forward to your input.

Respectfully,

~CodeWarrior

Printed from http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/11186

[slum_goddess]

believe it or not, this affects us all. :angry:

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

OUcH. Hope a loophole is found.

:psychofun:

[Kooperman]

No one owns the news. They may have a copyright on their particular sequencing of words, but the actual news will still be posted here.

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

I found this at UTC:

Listed below is the response to a question that I sent to Reuters. This should clear it all up.

Discussion Thread

Response (Webmaster (JW)) 31 03 2004 03:35 PM

Dear Tadd,

The purpose of the solution built with FAST technology is specifically to monitor Copyright violation. The tool has been designed to identify where a party goes beyond fair use of our stories - where they copy a full story and post it without license or they derive a story from our content without sourcing it.

Infringements of our copyright does not include where bloggers quote from and link back to our original story, or where sites display our headlines and link back to reuters.com. We are very comfortable with these practices.

If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,

Reuters Webmaster

Customer (Tadd Fisher) 30 03 2004 09:18 PM

I read an article that says you (Reuters) will be looking for your content posted on other sites. I visit multiple forums, and see that poeple post your news, but they do give credit to Reuters as the source and link back to the article they got the information from.

I am just looking for clarification. If I find an article done by Reuters, and I post a portion; making no changes to the content and linking back to the original source, is that exceptable or is you new stance to not allow any reproduction of any portion of any article by Reuters.

Thanks,

Tadd Fisher

Thread

[Kooperman]

That's good news, then...we know what's acceptable and what's not. All those full story posts are a thing of the past, at least from Reuters, who has the best variety and depth of reporting of all the services I've found.

Good work in getting this out there.

[slum_goddess]

so that's that--biz as usual, then.