That's what I meant by saying "Section 107" as opposed to "fair use". Not a fan of pointing to the actual text though -- I think people could misread it and assume there's some sort of hidden "fair price" term in there.
Yeah, I'm not sure that would work. Then people would just argue about whether the use was in the ocean or on the property -- e.g. they might argue that paraphrasing is "ocean" but direct quotation is "property". Also, insert all those caveats about physical property metaphors.
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.
I don't think this guy's confusion has anything to do with confusion between physical property and IP. It really is just that (1) he is not aware that fair use is a legal doctrine and (2) he's treating fair in the colloquial / literal sense of the 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.
I suspect the problem with the person who e-mailed you is that the literal definition of fair use differs from the legal one.
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.
I think the argument is that they didn't (directly) take his IP. FunnyJunk is like YouTube. FunnyJunk's users uploaded the images, not FunnyJunk itself.
He's not disputing the mathematical definition but pointing out the silliness of relying on a mathematical definition in lieu of the "plain meaning" of a term.
If you want to say point, then say point, not zero-length line. Likewise, if you mean tap, then say tap, not zero-length swipe.
Re: Re: Re: long term they are piddling away the value of their collection by making it effectively public domain
Mmm ... where to begin ...
(1) They might be drawing a line between Reddit and large-scale commercial uses. Refusing to enforce the copyright on Reddit doesn't bar them from enforcing it elsewhere.
(2) The effect of taking down this photo on Reddit would, in all likelihood, result in zero increased sales. So why bother? Leaving it up gives you goodwill which leads to more revenue from ...
(3) Alternative business models: T-shirts, posters, museums, pay for lunch with Ron Galella, etc.
(4) And this is assuming that Ron Galella's intent here is to maximize profits off of his copyright. Galella is old and famous, as far as paparazzi go at least. He's probably more interested in staying relevant than in maximizing the value of his estate.
I suppose future excerpts might address this, or maybe I should just buy the book ... but it seems that fair use is trying to do too many things at once.
There are lots of interests at stake when arguing for fair use. A handful off the top of my head:
* First Amendment rights to critique the original work
* A reluctance to impose penalties for "harmless" infringement
* A subsidy for favored uses like education
* A way for judges or other policymakers to fine-tune copyright and maximize the overall variety of works being produced
* A fallback for uses that sort of but don't quite fall within other copyright limitations like first sale or the inability to copyright facts
Trying to cram all of these uses into fair use might be why it's this vague balancing test that's so easily abused by well-lawyered interests. Maybe one way to "fix" copyright would be to split fair use up into multiple independent defenses.
Product placement. Or some other way to display ads while the actual content is playing (kind of how YouTube ads work). Or, better yet, make your ads worth watching (e.g. like SuperBowl ads).
Well, you could always try suing the government. If it's an ongoing violation, or if you're likely to have your rights violated in the near future, then you can sue the government to make it stop.
But if it's a one-and-done deal, then it's a lot harder. In the past, courts have awarded monetary damages to people who've had their 4th Amendment rights violated (see Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents), but AFAIK, they've never done that for 1st and 5th Amendment claims. I suppose you could also argue that the website seizure was a "taking" without compensation and demand payment for the one year it was seized, although I'm not really up to snuff on takings law.
Re: Er ... wouldn't any app that redirected to Safari violate this?
For that matter, if you redirected to any website with ads, you would violate the policy. Because you could click on an ad which sends you a page you can buy stuff.
Agreed. I'd pay money for the mail equivalent of Google Voice -- i.e. some website where I can add a list of blocked senders, or tell the Post Office not to send messages addressed to a previous resident.
On the post: Carreon's Full Filing Reveals He Donated To Oatmeal Campaign Himself, Plus Other Assorted Nuttiness
Re: Carreon's Disciplinary History
On the post: Fair Use/Fair Dealing Doesn't Require Payment Or Permission
Re: Re: Fair isn't the right word
On the post: Fair Use/Fair Dealing Doesn't Require Payment Or Permission
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.
On the post: Fair Use/Fair Dealing Doesn't Require Payment Or Permission
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.
On the post: Fair Use/Fair Dealing Doesn't Require Payment Or Permission
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.
On the post: The Oatmeal v. Funnyjunk: How The Court Of Public Opinion Beats The Court Of Baseless Legal Threats
Re: Re: Re: Funnyjunk isn't entirely wrong
On the post: The Oatmeal v. Funnyjunk: How The Court Of Public Opinion Beats The Court Of Baseless Legal Threats
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Funnyjunk isn't entirely wrong
On the post: Judge Posner Dumps Ridiculous Patent Fight Between Apple & Motorola As Contrary To The Public Interest
Re: Geometry fail
If you want to say point, then say point, not zero-length line. Likewise, if you mean tap, then say tap, not zero-length swipe.
On the post: Celebrity Photographer's Archivist Connects With Fans On Reddit Instead Of Freaking Out
Re: Re: Re: long term they are piddling away the value of their collection by making it effectively public domain
(1) They might be drawing a line between Reddit and large-scale commercial uses. Refusing to enforce the copyright on Reddit doesn't bar them from enforcing it elsewhere.
(2) The effect of taking down this photo on Reddit would, in all likelihood, result in zero increased sales. So why bother? Leaving it up gives you goodwill which leads to more revenue from ...
(3) Alternative business models: T-shirts, posters, museums, pay for lunch with Ron Galella, etc.
(4) And this is assuming that Ron Galella's intent here is to maximize profits off of his copyright. Galella is old and famous, as far as paparazzi go at least. He's probably more interested in staying relevant than in maximizing the value of his estate.
On the post: Judge Delivers Thorough And Complete Smackdown Of Oracle's Copyright Claims
Judge Alsup
On the post: Judge Delivers Thorough And Complete Smackdown Of Oracle's Copyright Claims
I hope Oracle appeals
On the post: Should People Learn To Code? Yes – If They Are Judges Ruling On Cases Involving Software
Re: rangeCheck
Yup, still real complicated
On the post: Should People Learn To Code? Yes – If They Are Judges Ruling On Cases Involving Software
rangeCheck
Yeah, that saved Google lots of time to copy.
On the post: How Does Fair Use Fit Into The Critique Of Copyright?
Fair Use Serves Too Many Goals
There are lots of interests at stake when arguing for fair use. A handful off the top of my head:
* First Amendment rights to critique the original work
* A reluctance to impose penalties for "harmless" infringement
* A subsidy for favored uses like education
* A way for judges or other policymakers to fine-tune copyright and maximize the overall variety of works being produced
* A fallback for uses that sort of but don't quite fall within other copyright limitations like first sale or the inability to copyright facts
Trying to cram all of these uses into fair use might be why it's this vague balancing test that's so easily abused by well-lawyered interests. Maybe one way to "fix" copyright would be to split fair use up into multiple independent defenses.
On the post: TV Network Execs Contemplate Going To Court To Say Skipping Commercials Is Illegal
Solutions
On the post: Congress Begins To Wonder Why ICE & DOJ Censored A Popular Hip Hop Blog For A Year
Re: This is the end of the discussion
But if it's a one-and-done deal, then it's a lot harder. In the past, courts have awarded monetary damages to people who've had their 4th Amendment rights violated (see Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents), but AFAIK, they've never done that for 1st and 5th Amendment claims. I suppose you could also argue that the website seizure was a "taking" without compensation and demand payment for the one year it was seized, although I'm not really up to snuff on takings law.
On the post: Apple Rejecting Apps That Use Dropbox Because *Gasp!* Users Might Sign Up For Dropbox Accounts
Re: Er ... wouldn't any app that redirected to Safari violate this?
On the post: Apple Rejecting Apps That Use Dropbox Because *Gasp!* Users Might Sign Up For Dropbox Accounts
Er ... wouldn't any app that redirected to Safari violate this?
On the post: Sen. Harry Reid: The Postal Service Must Be Saved Because 'Seniors Love Junk Mail'
Re: Re: Privatization
On the post: Insanity: CISPA Just Got Way Worse, And Then Passed On Rushed Vote
Re: Hey wait!
Next >>