# data[].attributes.body
1. Showing an entire movie in a classroom for a reward violates copyright. Videos can be shown if they are linked to educational purposes.

2. A parody, such as South Park, is covered under Fair Use.

3. Copyright expires after the death of the author + 70 years.

4. To legally play a movie for a whole school a legal copy must be purchased.

5. Slogans are blurred in movies and on tv because producers want to receive compensation, not because it infringes on copyright

6. Some items are not protected under copyright

-slogans/symbols

-facts/ideas

-procedures/methods

# data[].attributes.body
1. Must be nonprofit-educational

2. The nature of the work must be taken into account

3. There is no set amount- cannot use the entire document- must be transformative

4.Cannot affect the market

# data[].attributes.body
Copyright law exists to protect us. It encourages and promotes the progress of new scientific ideas and the arts.

It protects not only individuals and companies, but regular 'joes' through fair use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The best way to understand the flexible principle of fair use is to review actual cases decided by the courts. Below are summaries of a variety of fair use cases.

Cases Involving Text

Not a fair use. A company published a book entitled Welcome to Twin Peaks: A Complete Guide to Who's Who and What's What, containing direct quotations and paraphrases from the television show Twin Peaks, as well as detailed descriptions of plots, characters, and setting. Important factors: The amount of the material taken was substantial and the publication adversely affected the potential market for authorized books about the program. (Twin Peaks v. Publications Int'l, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993).)

Not a fair use. A company published a book of trivia questions about the events and characters of the Seinfeld television series. The book included questions based upon events and characters in 84 Seinfeld episodes and used actual dialog from the show in 41 of the book's questions. Important factors: As in the Twin Peaks case, the book affected the owner's right to make derivative Seinfeld works such as trivia books. (Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publ. Group, 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998).)

Not a fair use. In a case involving the author J.D. Salinger, an author wrote a book in which a character known as Mr. C was allegedly modeled after the character of Holden Caulfield, from Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye. After Salinger sued, the sequel's author claimed that his work was a parody, an argument rejected by the district court. The court determined that fair use would not succeed as a defense and granted Salinger's request for a preliminary injunction. (The Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the fair use analysis but reversed the case regarding the standard used for the preliminary injunction.) Important factors: Aging the character and placing him in the present day does not add something new, particularly since the character's personality remains intact as derived from the original work. (Salinger v. Colting, 641 F.Supp.2d 250 (S.D. N.Y. 2009).)

Artwork, Visual Arts, and Audiovisual Cases

Fair use. In a lawsuit commonly known as the Betamax case, the Supreme Court determined that the home videotaping of a television broadcast was a fair use. This was one of the few occasions when copying a complete work (for example, a complete episode of the Kojak television show) was accepted as a fair use. Evidence indicated that most viewers were "time-shifting" (taping in order to watch later) and not "library building" (collecting the videos in order to build a video library). Important factors: The Supreme Court reasoned that the "delayed" system of viewing did not deprive the copyright owners of revenue. (Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).)

Fair use. A Google search engine did not infringe a subscription-only website (featuring nude models) by reproducing thumbnails. Important factors: The court of appeals aligned this case with Kelly v. Arriba-Soft (above), which also permitted thumbnails under fair use principles. (Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007).)

Fair use. A publisher of monster magazines from the 1950s, '60s, and '70s sued the creator and publisher of a book, Famous Monster Movie Art of Basil Gogos. (Gogos created covers for the magazines.) The book publisher had obtained licenses from the artist directly, but not from the magazine publisher who claimed copyright under work-made-for-hire principles. The district court determined that the use was transformative. Important factors: The use was for a biography/retrospective of the artist, not simply a series of covers of magazines devoted to movie monsters. In addition, the magazines were no longer in print, and the covers amounted to only one page of the magazine, not the "heart" of the magazine. (Warren Publishing Co. v. Spurlock d/b/a Vanguard Productions, 645 F.Supp.2d 402, (E.D. Pa., 2009).)

Fair use. In a battle over the use of viral videos, a humor program, Equals Three, reproduced viral videos from another source, Jukin Video, and commented on them, often reproducing the clips in their entirety. Important factors: The court determined that in the case of 18 of the 19 videos, Equals Three used no more than necessary of each video for purposes of its commentary; and that the jokes and commentary added something new to the viral videos. Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 14-09041 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015).

Internet Cases

Fair use. The Washington Post used three brief quotations from Church of Scientology texts posted on the Internet. Important factors: Only a small portion of the work was excerpted and the purpose was for news commentary. (Religious Technology Center v. Pagliarina, 908 F.Supp. 1353 (E.D. Va., 1995).)

Fair use. Displaying a cached website in search engine results is a fair use and not an infringement. A "cache" refers to the temporary storage of an archival copy-often a copy of an image of part or all of a website. With cached technology it is possible to search Web pages that the website owner has permanently removed from display. An attorney/author sued Google when the company's cached search results provided end users with copies of copyrighted works. The court held that Google did not infringe. Important factors: Google was considered passive in the activity-users chose whether to view the cached link. In addition, Google had an implied license to cache Web pages since owners of websites have the ability to turn on or turn off the caching of their sites using tags and code. In this case, the attorney/author knew of this ability and failed to turn off caching, making his claim against Google appear to be manufactured. (Field v. Google Inc., 412 F.Supp.2d 1106 (D. Nev., 2006).)

Fair use. A real estate blog copied the first eight sentences from a newspaper article. Important factors. The blogger had copied only eight sentences and had not copied the "valuable" section (the commentary included with the article), and the court did not believe that the copying would affect the market for the article (the third and fourth fair use factors). Righthaven LLC v. Realty One Group, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-LRH-PAL, 2010 WL 4115413 (D. Nev., October 19, 2010).

Fair use. A nonprofit organization posted a newspaper article about police discrimination on its website. The newspaper assigned its right in the article to a third party, Righthaven, which filed the lawsuit. Important factors. The court's reasoning was influenced by the fact that Righthaven had acquired the copyright and was not in the newspaper business (it appeared to be in the "litigation business"). For that reason, the court reasoned that the nonprofit's use was transformative because its purpose was to educate the public about immigration issues, whereas Righthaven had no such purpose for the article (because it was not in the news business). And also, because Righthaven was not in the news business, it could show no harm from the defendant's dissemination of the article. Righthaven LLC v. JAMA, No. 2:2010-cv-01322, 2011 WL 1541613 (D. Nev., April 22, 2011).

Fair use. A user of an online political forum posted a five-sentence excerpt from a newspaper article with a link back to the newspaper's website. Important factors: The use was quantitatively small and did not cause the newspaper financial harm. In addition, the online political forum was permitted to use the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground, No. 2:10-cv-01356-RLH (GWF).

Fair use. Google made digital copies of millions of books submitted to it by libraries, scanned them and made them available to search through its Google Books service, so that users could-for free-identify relevant words, terms, or snippets from the scanned text. Google also allowed participating libraries to retain the copies they submitted. Important factors: Google's digitization was deemed a transformative use because it provided limited information about the books without allowing users more complete access to the works. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., No. 13-4829 (2d Cir. 2015).

Consider Fair Use Before Requesting DMCA Takedown

In 2008, a district court ruled that prior to requesting a takedown notice, a copyright owner must consider the likelihood of a claim of fair use. In that case, Universal Music issued a takedown notice for a video of a child dancing to the song, "Let's Go Crazy," by Prince. The owner of the video claimed that since Universal didn't consider the issue of fair use, Universal could have not had a "good faith belief" they were entitled to a takedown. Faced with this novel issue a district court agreed that the failure to consider fair use when sending a DMCA notice could give rise to a claim of failing to act in good faith. ( Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 572 F.Supp.2d 1150 (N.D. Cal., 2008).)

Music Cases

Parody Cases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The best way to understand the flexible principle of fair use is to review actual cases decided by the courts. Below are summaries of a variety of fair use cases. Not a fair use.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Copyright has never been an easy, black-and-white kind of issue. Arguments over copyright between creatives happen all of the time, it's an inescapable issue.

Read through some of these famous court cases that have created major public discourse over copyright - how it's handled, what it means, and why we should all care.

1. Rogers vs. Koons
_

Photograph: Art Rogers - 1985; Polychrome: Jeff Koons - 1988 (both via The Design Observer Group)

Case

Photographer Art Rogers shot a photograph of a couple holding a line of puppies in a row and sold it for use in greeting cards and similar products. Internationally, renowned artist Jeff Koons in the process of creating an exhibit on the banality of everyday items, ran across Rodgers' photograph and used it to create a set of statues based on the image.

Koons sold several of these structures, making a significant profit. Upon discovering the copy, Rodgers sued Koons for copyright. Koons responded by claiming fair use by parody.

Outcome

The court found the similarities between the 2 images too close, and that a "typical person" would be able to recognize the copy. Koon's defense was rejected under the argument that he could have used a more generic source to make the same statement - without copying Rogers' work. Koons was forced to pay a monetary settlement to Rodgers.

Significance

This is one of those famous cases that encompassed a larger issue in the art world, the issue of appropriation art. Can you build upon another's work to create your own original piece? And if you do so, does that constitute derivative work?

It also brought up the issue of photography as art, was photography just a documentation of the world, or is it a creative and artistic product? Neither of these issues was entirely answered by the case, of course, but it has also become a reference used in many cases afterward.

You can parallel this with vector-tracing a photograph for your design. Are you creating a derivative work that subtracts value from the original artist?

2. The Associated Press vs. Fairey
_

Photograph: Mannie Garcia - 2006 (via The New York Times); Poster: Shephard Fairey - 2008 (via Wikipedia)

Case

Famous street artist Shephard Fairey created the Hope poster during President Obama's first run for presidential election in 2008. The design rapidly became a symbol for Obama's campaign, technically independent of the campaign but with its approval.

In January 2009, the photograph on which Fairey allegedly based the design was revealed by the Associated Press as one shot by AP freelancer Mannie Garcia - with the AP demanding compensation for its use in Fairey's work. Fairey responded with the defense of fair use, claiming his work didn't reduce the value of the original photograph.

Outcome

The artist and the AP press came to a private settlement in January 2011, part of which included a split in the profits for the work.

Significance

Though there wasn't a court case and an actual verdict, this case created a lot of discourse around the value of work in these copyright battles. It's unlikely that Garcia's work could have ever reached the level of fame it did, if not for Fairey's poster. Garcia himself stated he was "so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it has had," but still had a problem with the fact that Fairey took the image without permission and without credit for it's originator.

Credit, credit, credit! On 99designs you cannot use licensed work - but in the right circumstances you can use stock imagery. When doing so, make sure everyone knows the source.

3. Cariou vs. Prince
_

Photograph: Patrick Cariou - 2000; Adaptation: Richard Prince - 2008 (both via artnet)

Case

Richard Prince is a well known appropriation artist - one who transforms the work of others to create new meaning in his own work. For an exhibition in the Gagosian Gallery, Prince appropriated 41 images from a photography book by French photographer Patrick Cariou, claiming fair use that he created new meaning out of the photographs. Cariou argued that it wasn't fair use, but copyright infringement.

Outcome

A judge ruled in favor for Cariou in 2011, claiming the changes made to Cariou's photographs weren't significant enough to constitute a change in meaning - fair use. However, the case is currently in appeal and the final decision has not yet been reached.

Significance

The initial ruling in this case in favor of Cariou has created huge divisions in the artistic community. It brings up questions about artistic intent and the subjectivity of art, asking "who was this judge to determine whether or not the appropriated artwork had enough meaning to be considered fair use" when the art could be interpreted differently by each person who viewed it. The jury is still out on this one.

Imitation vs. inspiration

Don't be a designer who creates work too close to that of another. You have to make sure you are creating something original and not derivative.

-

Update 4/25/2013

Not two weeks after this article was published, the original decision in this case was overturned and the judge ruled in favor of Prince for the majority of the works in dispute, claiming that Prince's work transformed the work in the way that it was aesthetically different, and thus acceptable under the argument of fair use.

Read more about the decision as well as the 5 pieces which are still under review by a lower court in The New York Times and Hyperallergic.

4. Modern Dog Design vs. Target Corporation
_

Illustrations: Modern Dog - 2008; T-shirt: Target (both via Business Insider)

Case

Seattle design firm Modern Dog utilized a series of sketches of dogs in their compendium put out by Chronicle Books in 2008. The firm alleges that illustrations from that design have been used in a T-shirt produced by Disney/Target for sale, and filed a lawsuit in 2011.

Outcome

TBD. There hasn't been a decision yet in this case but Modern Dog has been campaigning online pretty heavily for publicity and funds to help with its legal fees over the issue.

Significance

The Modern Dog case has brought to light a question burning in the mind of many designers and artists - what happens if a major corporation with many more resources than me, utilizes my artwork for profit?

Modern Dog was recently forced to sell their studio to cover the legal costs associated with this battle, so it's turning into a very extreme situation for them. We'll have to keep an eye out for how this progressed and continues to change the conversation around this issue.

Always defend your designs. Regardless of who you're going up against - if you think your design is in the right, then make it known.

5. Vanilla Ice vs. David Bowie/Freddie Mercury
_

Case

Vanilla Ice had a hit, in 1991, with Ice Ice Baby - it sampled but did not credit the song Under Pressure by David Bowie and Queen. Though at first denying it, Vanilla Ice later retracted the statement saying it was "a joke". Facing a lawsuit by the duo, Vanilla Ice 'fessed to sampling the work.

Outcome

The case was settled privately out of court with Ice paying an undeclared sum of money and crediting Bowie/Queen on the track.

Significance

There's really not a ton of meaning directly related to design with this one (except for, don't use other people's creative work!). But I couldn't resist adding it. This is one of the most hilarious copyright cases ever.

There are more cases out there! Any you have learned from?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 famous copyright infringement cases (what you can learn)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Copyright has never been an easy, black-and-white kind of issue. Arguments over copyright between creatives happen all of the time, it's an inescapable issue. Read through some of these famous court cases that have created major public discourse over copyright - how it's handled, what it means, and why we should all care.

# data[].attributes.body
How to get your video on YouTube through Fair Use

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law Society

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fair Use School: Response to YouTube's Copyright School Video

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is my winning entry for Public Knowledge's video contest to create a response to YouTube's new "copyright school" video. While YouTube's video is generally informative about copyright law and user generated video, it falls short when it comes to its description of fair use, an exception to copyright protection that allows you to incorporate copyrighted content into your videos without the permission of the copyright holder.