Fair Use/Fair Dealing Doesn't Require Payment Or Permission
from the how-things-work dept
It continues to amaze me just how much people can't get their heads around the rather basic concept of fair use (or, as some countries prefer, fair dealing). Howard Knopf has a blog post, talking about a Canadian university that, for reasons that make no sense, has included in its "copyright guidelines" the claim that it pays an annual fee to Canadian copyright collection society Access Copyright (currently involved in a bit of a controversy concerning its fees) to cover "fair dealing" copying.However, as Knopf writes, this makes no sense:
This, of course, reflects a serious misunderstanding. If the copying is “fair dealing”, it is unnecessary to pay Access Copyright or anyone else for copying it.The whole point of fair use/fair dealing is that it allows you to make use of works without permission or payment.
And yet it's very, very difficult for some people to comprehend this. For example, we were recently sent an email from someone who didn't like that we quoted a story that he had written, first saying that it did not meet his definition of fair use. I wrote back (nicely, I thought) explaining why our use was fair (we only used a small portion of the text, we added significant commentary on top of it, etc.). This person wrote back saying that he was very upset that we failed to "negotiate" with him, and until we came to a mutually agreed upon definition of fair use, we were no longer "permitted" to quote anything he has written.
I'm really not quite sure how to respond to such people, because explaining to them what fair use is seems to only make them more upset. The whole point of fair use is that we don't need permission. We certainly don't need to come to a mutually agreed upon definition of what that person considers fair use (since he outright rejected my definition, despite my offer to send citations showing that my definition is the legal one). Once you're talking about permission or negotiating, you're no longer talking about fair use.
Of course, in this case, there is a fairly simple solution: even though we legally can, I've instructed everyone here to simply never use this site as a source again, since the site's owner apparently would prefer not to have our traffic. That's got nothing to do with "fair use" however...
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: canada, fair dealing, fair use, permission
Companies: access copyright
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Part of the Plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Part of the Plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Part of the Plan
Also you seem to have fallen for the propaganda of the whole copyright is OWNERSHIP team. Cultural communication by default is not owned by anyone and instead is owned by EVERYONE, This is where copyright comes in. It is a limited right allocated by society (government) to allow the actual creator to control and exploit their work for a limited time until it goes back into public ownership (hence the term public domain).
As for your toast analogy, umm that would be classed as tort of trespass, or theft of electricity (utility fraud), larceny of bread (if it was yours originally), and maybe conversion. But has no similarity to copyright or even ownership of tangible goods in any way at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Part of the Plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Part of the Plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Part of the Plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Part of the Plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Part of the Plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Part of the Plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Part of the Plan
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The problem with the analogy is that "your" toaster is in someone else's house. Also, if they modify the toaster to toast anything other than toast (say bagels or pop-tarts) you can potentially threaten them with legal action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can we all stop trying to make analogue analogies for digitial things? They never really work and just get the argument dragged off down repeated dead ends.
We're all on a site called techdirt, we assume a reasonable level of technical understanding*, let's just stick to describing things clearly and dump the inaccurate analogies.
* I know, I know...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://freevideolectures.com/Course/2656/CSCI-E-2-Bits/51
[btw this is a great open source video about ideas and copyright by Prof. Harry R. Lewis of Harvard Uni]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Digitial thingies are like a string of ones and zeros"?
.
.
.
Best I've got.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rejecting the property model
"I said it, therefore it's mine and you can't use it without paying me or getting my permission"
"I thought it, therefore it's mine and you can't use it without paying me or getting my permission"
Only once we fully recognise that it isn't *copying itself* that's morally wrong, but *deception regarding the origins of a work*, can we ever move on to creating a legal system that makes more sense.
Trademark law, when properly applied to the task of preventing consumer confusion, is already there. It's primarily about it being illegal to mislead people about the source of goods and services in order to misappropriate someone else's reputation.
Patent law would take a long step down that road by including an "independent invention" defence, with plaintiffs having to provide reasonable evidence that copying was likely before a court case could proceed.
Copyright law needs to be refocused more on preventing plagiarism, rather than all copying. Such an approach would essentially make "CC-BY" the only state enforced level of agreement, with any further rights being handled either by contractual agreements, or else by becoming part of the realm of social, rather than legal, enforcement.
Much of the open source world is moving this way: a lot of the *code* is available under very permissive licenses, but the *names* are controlled under trademark law. If all you want to do is use the software, no problem, but if you want to make use of the *name* without complying with the organisation's trademark usage policy, then you're asking for legal trouble.
Sure, trademark law is open to its own abuses (especially aggressive trademark holders starting lawsuits over nominative use, or other cases where there is no chance for confusion), but it's anti-fraud foundation means it is in much better shape than either patent or copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair isn't the right word
That is, if you didn't know anything about the law, you'd interpret "fair use" in the same way as "fair price". Suppose someone comes up to you, gives you $200, and takes your phone away. He says he's entitled to do so, because the $200 is a fair price for your phone. You'd naturally protest, because (1) he unilaterally declared what was fair instead of negotiating, and (2) you weren't offering to sell your phone in the first place.
Likewise, your quoting this guy's story isn't "fair" because there wasn't any negotiation or offer to sell on his part. It sounds like he reacted the way he did, because he interpreted "fair use" literally.
In the future, maybe just avoid the word "fair". For example, "Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides a legal exception for short quotes" or that "you have a First Amendment right to quote someone for the purpose of commentary." Or you could just try capitalizing things -- e.g. the legal doctrine of Fair Use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair isn't the right word
A physical product is hard to reproduce. An intellectual product is not.
Citations are one of the most universally accepted fair uses of written material. Science would be significantly less accessible without this right.
What is essential is that this guy is paranoid about the use of his material and it is probably far more about his "Keeping up Appearences"(R), than what is being cited.
He might have a defence in other laws than copyright but that is not what he is going for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fair isn't the right word
I'm not arguing he's legally right -- just pointing out why he responded the way he did. Look at where he complains that Mike's definition didn't meet his own definition of fair use. That's a ridiculous statement to make if you think fair use is a legal term -- there's only one LEGAL definition, and it's written down in Section 107 of the Copyright Act! But if you're thinking in colloquial terms, then of course there are multiple definitions of fair. Apple thinks $2 is a fair price to pay to download a TV show. Others may disagree.
Nor do I think this guy, based on what Mike wrote, is really concerned about keeping up appearances or such. He seems more peeved about the lack of negotiation -- again, something that matters if you're concerned about "fairness" in the generic sense of the word, but irrelevant for copyright.
If you want to educate people about how copyright works, you have to understand where they're coming form.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair isn't the right word
I think this nicely illustrates the conflict of rights between privately owned expressions and public culture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fair isn't the right word
Sounds like the person Mike was referring to had drawn his own "Line of Death" in the "Fair Use / Fair Dealing" definition, and I don't think Mike (even if he wanted to) was going to send in a Naval Task Force to get his point across.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fair isn't the right word
Much easier, I think, to get straight to the point: This is free speech. Or, copyright law doesn't prohibit small amounts of copying for commentary and academic uses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair isn't the right word
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, 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."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fair isn't the right word
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just want to say
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy
The only time copyright should have any power is if a business or a person is using the copyrighted material to generate an income. Even then it has to be fair as quoting a few sentences or a couple of paragraphs to make a point is not copyright, or should not be.
If someone uses content from a site and does not link back to that site or advise who created the content, then i would think that could be seen as trying to "sell" the content as your own. and that should be copyrighted.
The copyright industry has gone crazy, they have made it so hard to do anything that people are now just ignoring it. That is when a law needs to be changed to become more fair
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Typo
Even techdirt can't spell "Fare Dealing" properly!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Subtle joke there?
Nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use is a right, but it's a right to use someone else's property. The reason people negotiate over it is because if an agreement is made, then there is no concern about infringement. The problem with fair use is that the person exercising their fair use rights always runs the risk that his assessment of what use is fair may turn out to be incorrect. Since fair use means using someone else's property, there is always a chance that the use could turn out to be infringing. You don't have to negotiate, but doing so makes sense since having a license is better than not having one. It's riskier to claim fair use later than it is to negotiate a license up front.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And no, it isn't someone else property. If I hear it or see it, I own it. You can't own what I experience. If you didn't want others to experience, you would have kept it secret. You own your secret diary, but not your blog. _However_, as a benefit to ME, I've agree to not *copy* it for a few years so you'll have incentive to create more.
Ask indigenous cultures, which have oral (and no written) traditions, if you "own" what you say, sing, etc. They would laugh at you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> public access to beach-front property. Sure, you
> could go and ask every home-owner where you are
> allowed to walk, but that just gives them incentive to
> build a fence into the ocean.
At least we don't have to worry about that in California. The state owns the beaches and as much as all those rich and powerful people in Malibu might like to keep you off "their" beach, they have no legal right to do so, and they certainly can't build any fencing on the beach at all.
Doesn't stop them from trying, though. I was walking the beach in Malibu with my girlfriend about a year ago and some movie producer or actor was having a party at his beach house (tables set up on the sand, etc.). There were hired goons deployed on both sides who were stopping the little people from crossing through what the homeowner deemed to be "his" beach and walking past his privileged guests.
I completely ignored the goon who kept telling me to stop as we approached and when he walked over and tried to put hands on me, I politely showed him my badge, explained the law about the beaches being public, and told him if he touched me, he'd be placed under arrest for assault on a police officer and transported down to central lockup. The look on his face was priceless-- like someone pissed in his Cheerios-- but he backed off quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So arguments such as 'but I can't exploit my property for profit due to infringement' are inherently wrong. What they mean is that they 'can't exploit their temporary monopoly for profit due to infringement'.
There is a big difference, particularly in the 'temporary' part. Fair use is a limitation on the temporary artificial right to the monopoly, it isn't a right in and of itself.
At least, that's my take on things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Game. Set. Match.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I know Mike claims that everything he publishes is public domain. I'm not convinced that that's so, though, because he hasn't explicitly abandoned his rights in this particular article, for example. But regardless, even if it is copyrighted, it's not infringement for me to quote him in my response. I'm not concerned about it because I know my rights. But sometimes it's not as clear, and it does make sense to get permission just to be safe. Depends on your risk tolerance really. The chances of Mike suing me for quoting him in the comments for the purpose of commenting on what he said is as close to zero as you'll ever get. As much as he hates me, he would never sue me for quoting him in the comments. Cute, but not exactly comparable to some other less clear cases of fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The first situation doesn't make sense for a different reason, that being that, while it does make sense to license things that aren't clearly fair dealing, the term "fair dealing" doesn't belong anywhere near such a license. It's either fair dealing or a license, but both is nonsensical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You realize that this makes no sense whatsoever in a lot of real life circumstances. For example, in a critiquing situation - who is going to give permission to have their blog post picked apart point by point by an opponent of their views? Pretty much no one.
I am certainly grateful that you are not someone in a position of authority. Your lack of vision beyond the letter of the law is a bit constraining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Then why the hell did you argue for people to negotiate before quoting?
Don't you get it? Like all the other trolls who frequent Techdirt, you preach "Do as I say, not as I do".
Just think about it, would you? Of what a world where everyone asks permission before quoting is like? Take...high school kids writing essays on a popular English novel for class. In one class you could have 30 kids. They have to ask permission to quote. That's 30 kids. In one class. In one school. Multiply that for the millions of kids around the world who are also studying that same novel and also writing essays that require quotes.
Now imagine you're the author of that famous English novel. Every day you get millions of requests to negotiate to quote. Do you want to chain authors to their email inbox, to reply to these requests 24/7?
Man...that's the problem with you trolls. You don't think critically. You don't think to yourselves "What would happen if what I argued came to pass?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What property? Does someone's article disappear if I decide to quote it and comment on it? Was it taken from the person who wrote while I was busy quoting and commenting on it?
Fair use is a right that was meant to be a line in the sand on how far copyright could extend. It is meant to protect those areas of expression that use copyrighted work without infringing on the copyright owner's right to control the copies of their work.
The problem with fair use is that the person exercising their fair use rights always runs the risk that his assessment of what use is fair may turn out to be incorrect.
That is partially correct. However, it is not for the copyright owner to determine what is fair. It is for the court to determine. In this case, the copyright owner feels he should be the final say in what is a fair use of his work. But he is absolutely wrong on that part. He has the right to petition the court to uphold his interpretation, but it is the court's job to have the final word.
You don't have to negotiate, but doing so makes sense since having a license is better than not having one. It's riskier to claim fair use later than it is to negotiate a license up front.
It may be slightly risky, if you are moving into uncharted territory. However, the act of quoting other articles to comment on them or the issues discussed therein is pretty solidly ruled to be fair use. It is already trodden ground and the only risk in doing so is the risk of running into people who have no clue what fair use is or what the courts have said on the matter.
On the other hand, there are areas where the waters are a bit more murky, such as using copyrighted music in videos. Here your arguments may be valid as music licensing is pretty common. However, there may still be fair use rights if you are not playing the whole song and are commenting on it, such as for a music review.
Fair use is not black and white. It is a legal grey area that gets whiter or darker as the courts add precedence to the legal arena. As the courts take on fair use cases and provide rulings on the matter, what is clearly fair use and what is clearly not fair use become easier for the lay person to determine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the songwriter is under contract with the same label as the performers then, I guess, you'd negotiate with the label. Who will, of course, tell you to pound sand as they don't recognize such things ass fair use/fair dealing. If the composer is licensing the work through, say, CAPAC then you'd negotiate with them where you'd get the same answer as the label would give you for much the same reasons. Naturally the band may object to the use as it's their arrangement of the song and their specific performance you're using so you'd have to negotiate with them too. As you can see the list gets long quite quickly.
Great work for someone hoping to be called to the bar soon.
As the act establishing copyright in the UK specifically mentions "education" as the motivation for the act and the US Constitution says it's for the promotion of science and the useful arts it's fairly easy to read into both that some form of fair use/fair dealing was antipated and allowed for, at least in the broadest sense. Neither makes any claim about a guarantor of income to the rights holder at all and neither would have anticipated the incredible period of time that a copyright is now in effect. (Notice that I didn't say creator of the work as that person, for one reason or another, is often not the rights holder.)
Yes, claims of fair use/fair dealing may be risky but there are volumes of case law defining what it is and where and why it's appropriate. The rights holder doesn't get to say "I don't like it" and that's that. It just doesn't work like that.
As for it being property like a toaster the sooner we get rid of that notion the better. It isn't. It's an incentive and a control over who can copy the entire work. It ain't a toaster or a lawn mower or a clock radio!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
By which method one sets a precedent. Are you sure that is a precedent you want to set? See the Righthaven piece where an entire article was used, and found to be fair use. No, one should not negotiate, and they should file suit in return for malicious prosecution if sued for fair use.
Then, I sure do wish lawyers were cheape...er a better value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is there any other kind of property that behaves in the same way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If it's in the public domain, no one owns it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course thats not the only definition you could probably find, but I believe this is the argument being made.
Concering copyrights, public domain is the right for anyone to use the material. That too, to me, sounds like its owned by the public. If it was owned by no one, no one would have a right to use it as they don't have any ownership of it. I believe it also makes more sense that it is owned by all, and not no one, because if no one owned it, it could be claimed by one person and then removed from the public domain. When it is owned by all, it cannot be removed from the public domain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They never make anything confusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Despite the (intentionally misleading) name, intellectual property is not property, not even in the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Negotiating every instance of fair use makes no sense. It would effectively stop the creation of knowledge. Should I have negotiated a fair use agreement with you to quote part of your comment? That would be idiotic.
2) Classifying various semi-random permutations of human thought as property is an extremely bad idea, as is demonstrated on a pretty much daily basis.
3) You tend to limit yourself to analysis of what the law is currently. A lot of this discussion is regarding the law being fundamentally wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of the financial relationship between universities and Access Copyright. You're thinking of it as a business relationship such as between, say, a pub with a band stage and ASCAP, when really, Access Copyright goes from door to door in Canada saying "Nice university you have there. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it."
And most of the universities pay them off to avoid a lawsuit that would be expensive to defend even if the university eventually prevailed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you could point them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
assuming, of course, that we're still allowed to link to the most obvious place to start learning about anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suggest billing them for link clicks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
balance of rights
Fair use speaks to how individual and corporate rights intersect and what's fair. If I buy a toaster legitimately, can I alter it? Can I re-sell it?
These days with standards and FRAND cases, it seems you don't even have the right to plug your legally obtained toaster in the wall!
The whole system of patents and copyrights is hopelessly broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA and MPAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Accidental troll is accidental
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Song lyrics
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
So, I trimmed the song down to 4 lines rather than the whole song. The site seemed to accept that. I took out "bitch" in the title.
So Mike, where did you get your guidelines for Fair Use. When someone won't accept them, do you say "Talk to my lawyer" and leave it at that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]