Law Professor Explains How Even When A Site Copies An Entire Article, It May Still Be Fair Use

from the a-lesson-in-fair-use dept

Mon, Dec 20th 2010 10:35pm — Mike Masnick

Berkeley law professor Jason Schultz has filed an excellent amicus brief in one of the many Righthaven lawsuits, pointing out that using an entire article does not preclude fair use (pdf), and then going on to explain why the use of an entire article in this particular case (which Righthaven brought against the Center for Intercultural Organizing) was almost certainly fair use. Basically, Righthaven has taken the approach that if an entire article is being used, then there can be no fair use. However, as Schultz points out, that's not at all what copyright law says:

A fair-use inquiry balances four statutory factors.... Righthaven, however, asks this Court to ignore those traditional factors and embrace an inflexible, one-factor test that prohibits a fair-use finding whenever an entire copyrighted work is used. That approach finds no support in the text and purposes of the Copyright Act and the cases interpreting it. Indeed, the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and this Court have all found the use of entire copyrighted works to be consistent with the fair-use doctrine. Those rulings recognize that copyright law balances two important public interests: promoting creative expression and encouraging the use of copyrighted works for socially beneficial purposes.

It is a common misconception that using an entire work means there's no fair use defense. We've repeatedly pointed out cases where courts have found fair use, even if an "entire" work was being used. But, still, we get commenters all the time who argue that there's no such thing as fair use if you use an entire work. Schultz, in his brief, highlights many more examples, including the explanations of why each case was still deemed as fair use. From there, he goes on and runs through the four factors in this particular case, and explains why it should be considered fair use as well. It will be interesting to see how the judge rules, because that could impact many other Righthaven cases as well.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, jason schultz
Companies: righthaven

20 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Pierre Wolff (profile), 20 Dec 2010 @ 11:22pm

That was a kick-ass amicus brief. In the footnotes he even manages to make one of Righthaven's arguments against Reality One backfire on them. That brief read like a 'feel-good' movie :) Now to hope it convinces the judge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The eejit (profile), 21 Dec 2010 @ 1:45am

Re:
Depedent on nhow many tax dollars are in Righthaven, sure. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2010 @ 3:40am

MORE i say
MORE PLUGINS PLEASE
MOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMOREMORE
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eric E. Johnson, 21 Dec 2010 @ 4:48am

Fair use to repost articles written about you
Aside from the points mentioned in support of this Righthaven defendant, there is another theory of fair use for reposting whole articles, that, in my judgment, arises when those articles are about the person reposting them. Blog Law Blog: Fair Use and Reposting Articles About You: http://bloglawblog.com/blog/?p=1136
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2010 @ 5:42am

Sadly, fair use is an affirmative defense, which means that first you have to admit to violating copyright, and they try to explain your way out of it. It is an interesting brief, but it is unlikely to sway many judges to go beyond existing rulings in the area.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2010 @ 6:00am

I'm so confused!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2010 @ 6:01am

Re:
'Existing rulings in the area' are part of the brief, which apparently you didn't even bother reading the /excerpt/ from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2010 @ 6:31am

Re: Re:
Yes, they are part of the brief. The point is there is little reason for the courts to exceed other rulings out there. It is also unlikely for them to use exception rulings as a basic for overall rulings.

I /understand/ that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bruce Ediger (profile), 21 Dec 2010 @ 7:01am

Re:
Chin up, little one! You shouldn't feel confused!

The point is that infringement (not theft!) is only decidable by a trial!

Therefore, you can't have some automatic system, be it youtube's Magic or Google's JooJoo, or Microsoft's hexing, decide wherther a particular file full of data infringes or not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 21 Dec 2010 @ 7:08am

Re:
"I'm so confused!!"

If you really want I can explain it to you but like the explaination of how "torrent could equal infringement, which if I am remembering correctly, is civil not criminal." you will be far more confused ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Another AC, 21 Dec 2010 @ 7:27am

Re: Re: Re:
I am not a lawyer, nor would I ever want to be. However, in reading the entire brief, Mr. Schultz is not asking the court to exceed other rulings. He is asking the court to find that based on those other rulings, this case has considerable similarity in its scope. He is also stating that Righthaven is nothing more than a corporate front for litigation. They have no interest in marketing the works they have acquired rights for and their only business model is to litigate using the acquired copyrights. In short he is calling a Troll a Troll. I have sincere hopes that the courts toss this whole proceeding and any other cases that Righthaven has open.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Allan Masri (profile), 21 Dec 2010 @ 8:12am

As others have commented, fair use is worthless as an excuse for using copyrighted materials, since you have to go to trial to take advantage of it. Lawyers are expensive, so most people faced with a copyright infringement suit simply acceded to the copyright holder's requests.

This case is interesting because the courts have started recognizing the problems represented by trolls. They have stopped issuing routine injunctions before the case is argued. This has been a major weapon for trolls. Perhaps this case will result in further anti-troll measures.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2010 @ 8:26am

Re: Fair use to repost articles written about you
College students photocopy entire articles from college libraries when doing research. I think its a given that the there is more to consider than just the amount of a work being copied.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 21 Dec 2010 @ 9:39am

Another common misperception about fair use . . .
Yes, many people seem to think that copying the entire work automatically precludes fair use. As you point out, this is not the case.

Another common misperception is that merely because the copying was "non-commercial" it is automatically fair use. This is also incorrect.

The fair use test uses four factors, and the courts have consistently found that all of them must be considered, and no single one of them is ever dispositive.

HM
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2010 @ 10:49am

Re:
I disagree. Procedurally, one should not have to admit to a violation of copyright laws, but instead can choose to argue that, primarily, no violation occurred because of other factors, and then argue that, alternatively, if a violation is found, there is still no liability because the act in question is protected fair use.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2010 @ 10:53am

Re:
Isn't the fact that it is an affirmative defense still a good thing? A genuine issue of material fact should preclude summary judgment here. The resulting trial seems like the exact kind of expense the plaintiff law firm would wish to avoid here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bob, 21 Dec 2010 @ 11:32am

Typical looniness from the university
Only someone at a University could come up with an argument like this. The academy likes to pretend that they're not a business and they're all in it for the common good-- and please don't pay any attention to that bursar behind the curtain with the huge bill.

Okay, sure, let's assume that sometime maybe a complete reproduction may be fair use. Let's look at the other three parts of the test:

* Does it diminish the value of the original in the marketplace? While we can't measure this, only a fool would argue, "Don't worry. The same number of readers will click through even though we're reproducing everything." And if it appears in search engines, you can be sure that it's diverting people.

* The difference between a not-for-profit and a commercial venture can be pretty slim. While I can't be certain about the defendant, I do know that there are 3843 people making more than $200k at the University of California. Who hoo! But don't worry, they're a "non-profit" so they get a super-pirate card to do what they want.

http://changinguniversities.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-salary-data-released-by-uc.html

* The nature of the copyrighted work is pretty clear. It was put on the web to earn money from advertising. It wasn't a kid's doodle in the margin of a notebook-- a perfectly good example of something that's technically copyrighted but not meant for the marketplace.

So go on loony law professor. Pretend that others don't need to make a living. Stretch fair use to the point of breaking. That's one good way to ensure that there will be push back from those who can't make a living by sticking their students with fat loans. The more you deny "fair use" in the obvious cases, the more that the content creators will need to push back with tougher legislation.

So give it a break. Not all use is fair use, no matter how much you want to dream and dream and dream.

*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Modplan (profile), 21 Dec 2010 @ 9:15pm

Re: Typical looniness from the university
I wish I was as good at making up straw men as you are, then I could win every argument regardless of what has actually been said.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
tisppublicitario, 23 Dec 2010 @ 5:32am

tisppubli
muchas gracias por la ayuda
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Vandals, 27 Dec 2010 @ 10:20pm

Transformative Works
Although I'm not completely sold on the argument that CIO's use is transformative, I love the brief because it really opens up the arguments for a full debate. I usually think of transformative as meaning there is an actual physical transformation, as in taking a picture of Mickey Mouse and transforming it from a cartoon into a social comment.

Our case, The Daily Variety Vs. The Vandals, looks like a joke when run though Schultz' analysis. We are presently waiting for a judge in Delaware to decide if it should be heard out there or here in California where all the parties and the lawyers are located. If you are unfamiliar with our case, we were sued for releasing an album that included a parody of the Daily Variety's "special font."

We discontinued the product as part of a settlement that we were railroaded into by the usual threats of burdensome litigation that trolls spew out. Then The Daily Variety abused the settlement agreement by ignoring its terms and suing us 6 years later because they said they "saw the image again on the Internet." So they are trying to frame it as a contract case, but it is really about Fair Use and abusing the legal process.

Now the Daily Variety has submitted a motion to the court to demand that we not be allowed to represent ourselves and that we be forced to hire expensive Delaware attorneys because it's not fair that we are not spending as much money as they told us we would have to spend if we didn't just give them $75,000 when they demanded it earlier this year. All this from a trade publication for the "arts."
http://www.vandals.com/Vandals/Description_of_Lawsuit.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]