Copying an Entire Article Without Permission – OK in Some Cases?

Judge Finds Full Article Copy to Be Fair Use

By Chris Crum · March 28, 2011 · 63 Comments

Last month, we asked whether full article-copying could be ruled as fair use. We now know the answer. Yes, it can.

Do you think duplicating an article in its entirety without permission is OK in some cases? Comment here.

Righthaven, a company whose business model relies on copyright lawsuits for newspapers, has essentially lost its second fair use case. The first one was over a partial article sampling, but this most recent one involved the copying of a full 33-paragraph article from the the Las Vegas Review Journal (with credit) by the Center for Intercultural Organizing, a ten-person Portland, Oregon-based nonprofit organization set up to preserve immigrant and refugee rights. The case has not been dismissed yet, but he judge presiding over it says he plans to.

The article in question was directly related to the nonprofit’s cause. It was a story about immigrants and their relationship with police in Las Vegas, and given that CIO is indeed a nonprofit, and is not serving a completely different market than the Las Vegas Review Journal, U.S. District Judge James Mahan found the copying of the article to be within the bounds of fair use.

The Las Vegas Sun, which has a detailed account of the case, quotes Mahan, who also appears to have called out Righthaven itself:

“Here the copyright has been removed from its original context,” Mahan said.

“Righthaven is not using the copyright the same way the R-J used it. Righthaven is using it to support a lawsuit,” Mahan said.

This type of copyright use has a chilling effect on free speech and doesn’t advance a purpose of the federal Copyright Act, which is to encourage and protect creativity, Mahan said.

He also made comments suggesting that if the Las Vegas Review Journal had sued CIO itself, it may have had a stronger case, though he didn’t imply that that they would’ve necessarily won either.

There is talk around the Blogosphere that the outcome of the case could have far-reaching ramifications within the news industry, as publishers will have to put more thought into who is using their content before sending takedown notices out.

Last month, we had a conversation about fair use on the web, with Copyright Clearance Center Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary Frederic Haber, who told us, “In the Copyright Act of 1976, Congress finally enshrined fair use in statute, but did not define it because what is fair use and what is not vary so widely with circumstances. Instead, Congress adopted and refined a test that judges had been developing over the years, directing a court to look at all the circumstances surrounding a use and make a judgment as to the appropriate way that a copyright holder’s rights and a user’s fair use privilege can best be balanced. That’s the famous ‘four factor’ test of Section 107 of the Copyright Act.”

“A fair use, then, is defined for digital content exactly as it’s defined for all other content,” he added. “It’s a use that benefits society generally but does not unreasonably interfere with a copyright holder’s right to exploit and protect its creative output (a right which is itself intended to encourage the creation of more creative output for the ultimate benefit of society). The four factor test is technology-neutral, much as copyright itself is technology-neutral, because it is intended to address the needs and rights of people (and not technologies) in as balanced a fashion as possible.”

“Righthaven appears to be using the courts to test the fair use balance by responding to some users’ use with an allegation that goes beyond that which is reasonable in the circumstances and interferes with the copyright holder’s right to benefit from its own creative output,” Haber said. “Here, the creator of content (the newspaper) is conveying its right to sue to another party – Righthaven – which appears to be more prepared to test the fair use claim (than a newspaper which would rather focus on its core business), but the issue should be the same. Copyright holders have long sought court protection against infringers, including those who allege fair use but are not in fact making fair use.”

Righthaven intends to appeal the ruling, and has already appealed the first one, but is still waiting on the final ruling for that.

Righthaven typically seeks around $150,000 in damages and the forfeiture of the defendant’s domain name. The company has filed over 250 lawsuits in the past year (including a new one, just this past Thursday). After this, maybe they’ll at least stop targeting nonprofits.

Do you think CIO’s re-use of a full article should be considered fair use? Tell us what you think.

RELATED ARTICLES:

There are 63 Comments. Add Yours.

Christine
March 22, 2011 at 10:31 pm
Reply

If someone reprints an article and gives full credit to the writer of the article, I don’t see a problem. It would be nice if they linked back to the article.

However, if they reprint the article and take credit for it themselves, without acknowledging the author, I see that as copyright infringement.
John of AllFaith
March 22, 2011 at 10:43 pm
Reply

I believe the ruling is correct.
There is a difference between using another person’s material as one’s own (which is plagiarism) and for profit and posting it for free discussion in full or in part. As long as the material is properly sourced and provides no profit to the re-poster, I believe it falls within the bounds of fair use.
Andrew Carmichael
March 22, 2011 at 10:51 pm
Reply

I think that it is ok to copy the entire article because for thing the origional writer wrote the article for it to be read and if it is copied this gives others a chance to read it. That is a bonus for the origional writer

KEEP ON COPYING
Ron LaVine
March 22, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Reply

This should answer the USA question…
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
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. 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 fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
David West
March 23, 2011 at 12:05 am
Reply

It seems that some webiquette is gradually developing.
Maybe some sensible guidelines can be adopted.
I would suggest the following:

Never use non-original work without a reference to the source.
Attempt to obtain permission from the author, and maybe gain a back-link too.

Repeating the first few paragraphs from another site and then providing a link seems a fair way to recompense the author, with no permission necessary.

Best regards

David
PS Have a laugh with this weeks Sunday Humour
Lasse Martinell
March 23, 2011 at 2:44 am
Reply

No, no, no. An article is often a one mans hard work.
It’s NOT the same as copying music, photos, movies, software or games.

Or is it?

Think about that.

Respect for all producers of copyright material.
Randy
March 23, 2011 at 2:47 am
Reply

As long as credit is given to the person, and the publication it came from, what’s the harm?
Chan Kong Loon
March 23, 2011 at 3:24 am
Reply

No, it’s unethical and violates the author’s copyright. You can copy the entire article but you need to rewrite in using some of your won words and phrases. That will do.
kristie perez
March 23, 2011 at 4:04 am
Reply

You must edit at least 1st paragraph..!
alica brobe
March 23, 2011 at 4:15 am
Reply

Hey You Right Dude..Its very shameful..
Amleua Edge
March 23, 2011 at 4:20 am
Reply

I agree with kristie perez… you must edit at least one paragraph.
Alex W
March 23, 2011 at 6:39 am
Reply

Copying a complete article without the authors permission for commercial use is a not OK. The original source and the author should always also always be mentioned.This has always been the practice in the academic world.

The wonderful thing with the web is that it does not take more than a few secs to make a link to a useful resource.

A certain company had the idea that you can copy 12 million books and sell them online, and that it would be “OK” if you pay peanuts in a settlement compensation without agreeing with individual owners.

The 12 million books “case” clearly show how dangerous it can become.
If a complete article is OK, soon you can steel any authors lifetime of work.
Who on earth will write new books if you are allowed to steal the work, and resell it? It is very dangerous to take weaken IPR rights.

It is a BIG error to allow complete article copying without permission.
Just think about it, if it is OK, then a big online company with enough computing power could steal – sorry copy – in other words own everyones website tomorrow including yours and in their own right decide to “sell” the content they stole ..err. “copied with out permission”….

Ironically the same big “book” case company is crying and pointing fingers at a competitor who found an intelligent way to use click-data, claiming this was “copying results”…

IT IS NOT OK TO COPY WITHOUT PERMISSION.
William O'Connell
March 23, 2011 at 7:55 am
Reply

As a copyright holder myself, I feel fair use is any use which does not take income or income potential from the holder, which I don’t see in this case. I believe this is the essence of fair use. They should be flattered that the entire article was considered worthy of reprinting.
hugh williams
March 23, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Reply

i wouldn’t be happy if it was my site i suppose. if i had spent hours creating and article for someone just to copy it but if they created a back link saying copied from here etc then i suppose i could accept it
Joseph
March 23, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Reply

I feel that the duplication of articles should be vaid provided peoper credit is given. We have to remember that the internet is fluid and valuable knowledge will be lost if only a link is provided. If the complete article is copied and a reference link back to the original site this should constitute fair use. Now I view the fair use policy is different in hard copy publications as opposed to the internet. Hardcopy pubs can be archived at libraries and book depositories whereas the internet has no such things.
SEO Bedford
March 24, 2011 at 6:10 am
Reply

If the website republishing this article is not making any profit with it and it is doing with the sole purpose to “spread the word” even further I don’t why can’t this be done.
Parvateesam
March 24, 2011 at 7:48 am
Reply

This is totally information website. You can learn anything related creative subject in our website
Jason@eldonrv.com
March 24, 2011 at 10:10 am
Reply

I think since accurately quoting a person is fair, and legal, it should also be legal to quote what they print. Be accurate and responsible, give them credit for their work and don’t substantially alter it to say something other than what they originally said. If available, give links back to their original work, so your readers can verify your voracity in citing your sources. Quote them wrongly, and you’ll find yourself at least flamed, and maybe sued. Not any different than it’s ever been really… just on the www now.
Nomad Rush
March 24, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Reply

This is a no brainer. No money made = fair use. If you publish and make money, well, you did infringe on someones right to make it. Courts will not entertain a suit that is not commercial in nature. It is blatant that they did not make money from the articles publication. No charges were made, so there is no way a court can find harm.

The deal is if you sell it, rent it, make money from it, then you will be had.

I usually ask anyway, even if it is for education, because it is nice and no one has denied me. One time a major UK newspaper had an old article I was linking to go away from age and update of the website. When I asked again if I could publish the article they brought it back online, gave me a new linkback and the okay.
George Laugharne
March 25, 2011 at 7:21 am
Reply

Yes it is ok to copy the full content of an article so long as the article has been set to share.
John Park
March 25, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Reply

If the site is not trying to profit off the article, but is using it for educational purposes and it is relevant to the site, I don’t see any problem with it as long as they site the source and in this case, at the beginning of the article. Out of courtesy, they should of emailed them and asked permission.
shelby wallace
March 26, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Reply

It is totally upsetting when you put your time and effort into writing great articles and then have them stolen, mostly from people in countries where their leaders could care less and therefore, have no laws protecting those of us who do the hard work, just to see it stolen.
Jason Samuelson
March 26, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Reply

Mostly the judge has it wrong, and is indulging his own bias and misstating the law, because the judge personally likes the defendant thief and dislikes the business model of the plaintiff copyright-holder.

Also note that since the biased judge is only at the trial court level, his decision has no bearing or authority to be cited in other cases.

The judge is grasping at straws to find excuses to make a dishonest ruling … other courts will give little credence to this judge’s dishonest behavior.

I should mention, though, that in weighing the four major criteria for whether a given instance is fair use or not, the judge ignored some, got others wrong, and in only one is he partially correct.
Windows Seattle
March 28, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Reply

Wow, What is the world coming too. The article was not making money, then who cares. If it’s for a non profit, then exceptions should be made. I agree with the stopping of targeting non profits. Thanks for the chuckle.
AKSV
March 31, 2011 at 2:09 am
Reply

IT IS OK IF THE PURPOSE IS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF SOCIETY.
Imelda Ortega Suzara
April 4, 2011 at 6:20 pm
Reply

If the article is used for educational and cultural purposes without commercial profit, it should be okay if done correctly. The non-profit CIO should have maybe just quoted or summarized the article briefly from Las Vegas Sun and linked to their original article for the complete version. Ideally, CIO should have asked permission first to do that but even if not, citing an original author/article and linking to it has to be done correctly.