Quantcast

What is Fair Use? You Tell Us.

String of Lawsuits Puts Fair Use Back in Spotlight

Get the WebProNews Newsletter:
[ Business]

What is fair use? It’s a question that doesn’t seem to go away. Traditional media publications often throw blogs under the bus for borrowing quotes and spreading news to their own audiences. While there are certainly plenty of cases in which blogs do trample on the concept of fair use, to say that blogs in general follow this practice is simply absurd. In fact, as we looked at in a recent article, traditional media publications "borrow" from blogs as well, and often don’t even give the credit that most professional bloggers would give without thinking twice.

An LA Times piece this week looks at a publication – the Las Vegas Review Journal – that has reportedly filed over 30 lawsuits against blogs that it claims use its content without permission, leading author James Rainey to ask, "So what is fair use?"

How would you describe fair use? Tell us in the comments.

Again, this is not a new question, but it is one that has yet to be collectively resolved. We took it upon ourselves to reach out to a number of media professionals from both blogs and traditional media publications, as well as lawyers, and readers, with the aim of presenting a well-rounded view of how these different parts of the media-picture see fair use. Unfortunately, not everyone was too eager to lend their opinions on such a touchy subject, and I have yet to receive any real response from any of the traditional media publications I contacted (I’ll update if I do).

Viewpoints

Rich Ord, CEO of the iEntry Network and Publisher of WebProNews says, "Fair use is taking small amounts of content in order to add perspective or additional information to your own content. A publisher should also link to the content source and credit them accordingly."

Marshall Kirkpatrick, Co-Editor, VP of Content Development and Lead Blogger at popular tech blog ReadWriteWeb tells WebProNews, "Aggregation and filtering is a beautiful thing.  Give me a day with a HuffPo appearance and it’s a good day for us at ReadWriteWeb. Excerpts with as much as three paragraphs, with attribution and a link, are a great way to add value and share traffic. Fair use paves the way for rapid content creation and curation – I have no fear of it at all."

Here’s how one of our Facebook fans described fair use: "I see fair use as similar to writing papers. Name the source and link, if necessary and do your homework. Some companies do not allow use of their materials at all without their permission. There aren’t documented rules as there are for writing papers such as the writing formats MLA or APA but they do include rules to follow when using online content in writing."

The Law

Attorney John Burton, who practices Trademark/Copyright and Internet/Technology law, tells us: "Fair use is a legal doctrine under U.S Federal.Copyright law that provides for limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the copyright owners, such as for news, research, teaching and commentary.  It provides for the legal use of third-party copyrighted material under a four-factor test:

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."

"Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation (2003) set a strong benchmark for fair use and the Internet," Burton continues. "Arriba Soft was found to have violated copyright without a fair use defense in the use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly’s website in Arriba’s image search mechanisms.  The decision was appealed."

"On appeal, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant," he continues. "In reaching its decision, the court utilized the above-mentioned four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution like the original artwork was. Second, the fact that the photographs had already been published diminished the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a ‘full’ replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase exposure of the originals."

Interpretation

So how would this apply to written content? Would a snippet and a link, designed to send traffic to the original source, be the text equivalent of a small thumbnail increasing the exposure of the original?  It’s not so clear.

Burton seems to recommend a better safe than sorry approach. "Essentially, caution is the word when using copyrighted content of another on your website," he says. "I strongly recommend receiving written authorization from the copyright holder prior to redistributing their work or link, especially if there is a commercial interest in why you are using the work."

WebProNews spoke to Attorney Michael Donaldson of the law firm Donaldson & Callif and Pat Aufderheide, the Executive Director for the Center of Social Media at American University, who has worked with the university’s law school on developing best practices for fair use, at SXSW a couple months ago. They also spoke about fair use from the legal perspective. Watch this clip if you’d like to hear more on the subject from this standpoint:

"Fair use is part of copyright law, and it says you have the right to use other people’s copyrighted material without licensing it, without paying for it, or even asking them permission under some circumstances," said Aufderheide. "The law itself is rather vague, so the question is , ‘how do you interpret that law?’"

"The newspaper people had me pretty much in their corner until they went after the cat people," writes James Rainey, the LA Times writer who covered the Las Vegas Review Journal story. Basically, the story is about a newspaper publication going after dozens of blogs for using content. To what extent this content was used is not really delved into, but the highlighted example is of a small cat blog that doesn’t even have ads on it, and could hardly be considered a competing publication. In all "fairness," you should read Rainey’s story for more on these suits.

Regardless of how you interpret fair use law, it appears that the traditional media will continue to put pressure on new media. One minute the New York Times is talking about how important blogs are, and the next, it’s keeping feed readers from using its content. Of course, as Search Engine Land Editor-in-Chief Danny Sullivan recently showcased, traditional media also pushes the boundaries of fair use itself. It goes both ways. Unfortunately, traditional publications are more likely to have the funding that bloggers may not have, when it comes to legal disputes.

Are traditional media publications justified in going after bloggers who use samples of their content and link to the original? Share your thoughts in the comments.

What is Fair Use? You Tell Us.
Top Rated White Papers and Resources
  • sofakingdabest

    Bloggers beware. Whether you’re right or wrong, once you’re in the legal system, ya gotta pay to get out of the system. The lawyers for these companies can find out(private investigators) if you have enough money to settle. Then they’ll come after you. Take your house, cars and garnish your wages. It’s ugly.

    • Chris Crum

      I hope this isn’t from personal experience.

  • MrH

    When I see the phrase “Fair Use” I think of stuff like no legal issues necessary and for personal use only. When high priced sports ad movies are on the tube, we always see warnings about rebroadcasting and not for profit, etc. The musicians, writers and the music industry is slowly getting their fair share of what they have coming to them because legislators are finally listening. Copy & pasting a link and directing a reader to a link should not make one vulnerable to being between a rock and a hard place. I don’t make a hypothetical dime from passing on a link, the profit and benefit goes to that site – not to me. Hypocritical is closer to describing what the issue here is. Hypocrites are never fair.

    • Chris Crum

      That last line is good.

  • Guest

    Materials are free for all. Copyright is a short term allowance given to producers to allow them to make money.

  • http://www.jumbocdinvestments.com/iracdrates.htm IRA CD

    It really doesn’t matter what we consider fair use to be, only matters if we have the resources to defend ourselves.

    I think the search engines should remove their content to start. Next bloggers should stop linking to them. Then let’s see how long they last before they start begging to be cited and linked to.

    They don’t understand the web and how it works. Proper fair use should be if you quote their material, you link to the source. But, they are use to everyone paying for the subscriptions. It just isn’t that kind of world anymore.

    I do believe investigative journalism is important. And I realize it takes time and money to do it. But the newspapers need to find a way to make it work in the new world. However, going after bloggers who are creating a win-win situation for them isn’t the answer.

    cd :O)

    • Chris Crum

      Of course many bloggers practice journalism as well, doing their own reporting without leaning on other publications for all of their content.

    • Guest

      1. Brief quote,
      2. Singular use,
      3. No financial gain.

      • Guest

        and in most *if not all* cases you should cite or provide a link to the source of that info., A lot of the content from blogs are just a regurgitation of something someone else regurgitaed from yet another source. If you didn’t author the material you shouldn’t be able to generate dime one from that content, unless released into the public domain as “public”.

      • Guest

        No financial gain? Reviewers and parody makers stringly disagree.

  • Guest

    If you don’t want it copied, reproduced, plagarised etc, don’t put in on the internet!!!! If you do then it is fair game. The copyright law (as far as the internet) is a plague on society and if one law ever needed throwing in the bin then its Copyright! Many won’t agree but that’s my opinion. If I don’t want anyone to get acess to something I do then it is put in a place where they have to pay for it!! Otherwise I couldn’t give 2 hoots.

  • http://www.shapirit.biz ?????? ??????

    A few days ago I stumble upon a web site that copied two of my published Hebrew articles (http://www.shapirit.biz/environment.html and http://www.shapirit.biz/doar_zevel.html) , added some filling on his words and published them as his own, who knows for how long those two pages gave him traffic but when I found out I demanded to remove them, he called me and DID NOT confess that he steal them but he removed all the 1:1 sentences leaving only the technical data and he’s own words, well, I agreed to that because technical data should be published for all but personal impressions and writing style is explicitly MINE!.

    Usually when you write a book and relay on others work to give emphasis to yours you add at the end of that book the sources you used to build your thesis, the same should be used at websites, link to the source and elaborate in your work.

  • smithersgs

    It seems obvious to me… quote and cite its source.

    • http://apjwebdesigns.com PJ

      I agree with smithersgs but would add that if a link back to the source document should be embedded when naming the source.

  • http://www.frannleach.com Frann

    A short paragraph, or a couple of sentences is all I would describe as ok under “Fair Use” and I believe that is what is intended. If anyone quoted my herb posts verbatim, I would be pretty angry, with or without attribution.

  • Tim Johnson

    I think the above comments are clear and correct. Anything posted electronically is open to abuse, but we can help police things and keep it under control.
    I am a commercial photographic illustrator and do majestic size prints – 50 inch by 60 feet. They are hard to copy. However, I am also a commercial calligrapher and use my lettering skills to have my marketing samples noticed.
    I sent 200 REALTORs an offer to image their portfolios and print images for an upcoming show.
    The compliment I got from one of the marketing professionals was to use my hand lettering in several months of newspaper ads – without saying thanks, compensating me or giving me credit.
    My pictures in TIME, LIFE, Newsweek and other publications have always carried my name, as they should.
    This little bit of ink on paper was my creation too, and should have been credited – or paid for.
    But that is just my feeling down here in RTP, NC.

    • Ben

      “They are hard to copy.”

      Really?

      I man, I don’t doubt you do your best, and maybe it is my work in studying computer science that adds to this doubt, but I doubt it will take but a moment to make a duplicate of your image if given the chance to prove the ease.

  • http://greenmantle.biz Mark Greenmantle

    I’ve worked on both sides of the fence here, having spent over a decade in traditional news print media talking to lawyers daily about fair use and fair comment and now as a freelance photographer who has had a major media company steal my shots from my blog for ‘editorial use’ without request despite those shots being licensed only to the international touring band I was shooting for. My advice is to always ask first as you may find that assuming it’s fine will have a sting in its tail. That major media company had to pay me full commercial use rates per photo after the fact, far greater than if they’d asked for images for editorial use first and paid the editorial rate.

    • Guest

      “My advice is to always ask first as you may find that assuming it’s fine will have a sting in its tail. ”

      IMO, that advice works, but in limited areas. I doubt anybody would reasonably expect to have to ask first, for example, to quote passages from a book or article for reviews, critiques, or assignments in school for example, nor *necessarily* the same with brief quantities of video [hence why a good number of people who WERE using other videos in the spirit of fair use are able to get their videos back up on YouTube after DMCA takedowns. Photos, large to entire pieces of music or videos, etc, absolutely ask first.

  • http://livingcafe.com Roland

    fair – use what sund ldoes a frog make?

  • http://www.medlawplus.com medlaw

    Here is another concept to keep in mind when discussing the limits of copyright law: “Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.”
    http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

    What that means is that only the exact way that a thought is expressed is protected, not the underlying thought or facts. For instance, if the New York Times breaks a big story about US government corruption with an exclusive story, that does not mean all other news organizations must get permission from the NYT to relate to its readers the contents of the exclusive NYT article in question. They can paraphrase, summarize, et cetera without violate the copyright. Ideas and concepts are not copyrightable.

    • http://hoshilandia.com hitokirihoshi

      This is very relevant interpretation of the copyright law.
      and i think as long as there’s credit and the original piece is just use as a source, that’s fine.

      thanks anyway for enlightening me!

  • Dan in NC

    The exact definition of “Fair Use” is sticky even under the existing copyright laws in the US. This was made even more complex by a case a couple of years ago (see: “Capitol v. Naxos”: http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_02570.htm ). This case in New York essentially extended copyright protection to what was at the time in the ‘public domain’ under copyright law and did so retroactively in contradiction to the ex post facto provisions in the US Constitution.

    Strictly speaking, and according to the US Copyright Office, fair use under title 17, U. S. Code, section 107 (see: consists nebulously as:

    “1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of 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
    4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work”

    (see: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html and http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ )

    I deal with vintage recording restoration of pre-1925 acoustic era sound recordings so I have some experience with this exact subject. Despite a recording being in the public domain (Edison recordings, for the perfect example) certain aspect of these recordings are covered under copyright (the piece of music itself, but not the performances which were ‘works for hire’ under which any future claims as to the performers’ rights were originally nullified by contract). The problem is that Capitol v. Naxos essentially claims that since recordings prior to 1972 could not be copyrighted (no provisions for copyrighting for phonorecords prior to that year) and therefore no copyright existed to expire in the first place. The one challenge to this law that hasn’t been heard is that the court decision was retroactive (ex post facto) and that you cannot award something like a copyright for something that wasn’t copyrighted when originally ‘published’

    Essentially, if you publish something without having it copyrighted under US Code, and someone ‘steals’ it, you can stop them from producing it for commercial gain but you cannot recover any damages. Derivative works are clearly protected but the definition of derivative works is open to whatever interpretation a given judge decides on particular day, precedent being irrelevant (since some judges totally ignore the Constitution as a matter of course).

    • Ben

      “if you publish something without having it copyrighted under US Code, and someone ‘steals’ it”

      copyright infringement, piracy, and theft/stealing are not one in the same, and to mix them like this confuses the matter, IMO of course.

  • http://www.LondonsTimes.us Rick London

    To my knowledge, one of the main focuses of the FUA has to do with parody, cartoons, etc.
    As a cartoonist who often deals with celebrity parodies, I have had my share of legal letters (has have most cartoonists). My mentors, Charles Schulz, Leigh Rubin, Dave Coverly and others told me to expect it. And expect it I did.

    Schulz told me about the time Mad Magazine did a cover story parody on Peanuts/Snoopy. He had not seen it yet; yet his attorneys had. They shot out a cease and desist letter to MAD. A few hours later Schulz saw it, loved it, and wanted to purchase every single copy to send out to friends.

    Most of (us) cartoonists know the fair use act almost verbatim when it comes to parody.

    About 8 years ago, I was contacted by Barbara Orbison, widow of Roy, who saw one of my cartoons regarding him and wanted to see if she could buy the rights for a Christmas card. I let her use it at no cost (Roy had brought plenty of entertainment pleasure to me) and she used it several years. We stayed in touch and she was very happy.

    About two years ago I received an email from a Houston Law Firm who sent me a VERY angry cease and desist; that her client Barbara Orbison was “FURIOUS’ and wanted to sue. I asked her when was the last time she’d talked to Barbara Orbison and why she didn’t receive the Christmas card containing the cartoon. She knew she was busted.

    There have been many others. We always send the cartoons to the celebs before posting them. From many, we have received positive reviews on our reviews page.

    Many of these lawyers are a step below ambulance chasers in that they simply spend their
    day on the web looking for their clients name, send threatening emails, to “Settle”. Most cartoonists do not know their rights and DO settle when they could sue back for frivilous law suites.

    I received one 5 hours ago from another Hollywood types attorney and ignored it. I will recieve more. Most of us (cartoonists) simply frame them and see who can get the most. It becomes a hobby.

    But it is more serious than that. The lawyers who partake in this obscene act erode our
    unique U.S. Constitution. The Fair Use act is probably the major difference between our Constitution and any other of any country of the world.

    I know a bit about this. My maternal great great etc uncle was U.S. Supreme Court Judge
    Benjamin Cardozo. Most of today’s lawyers learned Contitutional Law from books that he
    wrote.

    If they continue this horror, they really should move to Iran, Syria, the former Soviet Union
    or someplace that would encourage their type activity. There is NO PLACE FOR IT IN
    THE LAND OF THE FREE.

    Sincerely,

    Rick London
    Londons Times Cartoons

  • http://www.mikeandrewconsulting.com Mike Andrew

    Hi Chris,

    As a frequent blogger and running 10 blogs that are all industry specific, I do from time to time use other writers articles and blog posts, I’ve always played fair with this and always kept the links and author bio and credits intact,giving the author due credit.

    To me this is what social media is all about, sharing information that is relevant and helpful to my readers, regardless of who wrote or published the article or story.

    I post all of my articles on sites such as Ezines and I’m chuffed when someone thinks my content worthy enough to syndicate.

    I recently though fell fowl of one site, who ordered me to remove a blog post I had published as a guest post on my blogs and told me they would take legal action if I persisted in republishing their content.

    I can understand this type of reaction if I had republished their content and claimed it as my own or had removed the links and credits.

    This smacks of big brother and I personally would be very disappointed if this type of reaction became common place. If a blogger follows the rules and gives credit where credit is due, it only serves to promote the distribution of great content.

    • http://hoshilandia.com Hoshi

      i understand that being the creator of an art or article, artists/ institutions find it foul to see their master piece in other media without giving them credits.

      but as long as the bloggers don’t alter what they want to express and their info is in bloggers’ pages, i think that’s cool. bloggers can actually be publicists and give exposure for free.

      and blogs are one of the main sources of issues/info right now.
      :)

  • http://realtijuana.blogspot.com The Real Tijuana

    People schooled in the U.S. tend to confuse plagiarism with infringement of copyright because of what they learned in high school English classes. Outside of school it is not enough simply to give credit to your sources (which is the defense to plagiarism): if you are making money from someone else’s work, that makes you a publisher and you owe the author a royalty. Royalties fall under contract and contracts need to be negotiated.

    The “fair use” doctrine made it into copyright law in the early 1970s. It has always seemed sensible and yet it has never been clear. Copying for academic purposes is permitted but you can’t photocopy an entire chapter from a textbook … unless maybe the textbook is out of print. You can’t quote more than a hundred words in a commercial work unless … wait a minute, that’s really an old typographers’ rule about whether the quotation is run into the main paragraph or indented as an extract! What might be fair to Rupert Murdoch or Clarence Thomas might very well not seem fair to the rest of us.

    On our own blog things are even more complicated because we often use sources in Spanish and translate them into English. Yes, there is a section of copyright that deals with translation. In our case, there’s one in the United States and there’s one in Mexico — and they don’t agree.

    Our approach has been to cite sources for ancillary material (short quotations), to secure translation rights for entire articles, and to use our own words for anything in between. We also like to use efferent links in all cases of attribution because we believe that falls within “white hat” SEO.

  • http://afraidmarketer.blogspot.com/ Andreas Krokene

    Just a side note on traditional media and fair use.

    It seems that for traditional media they cannot stand the thought of losing their monopoly and advertising revenue. They are a bit like news readers on TV, in that, no media, offline or online, makes the news: it only report the news.

    Fair use, therefore, is just passing on, in part, of what actually is owned by us all. But, because traditional media could always milk it for their own financial gain, now that we have a much more accessible electronic media where everybody can have a say very cheaply, they are losing their monopoly.

    And the peasants, that’s us, are beginning to make them sweat.

    They don’t like that!

  • http://www.moonshadoz.com snow

    If you used it once , LET IT GO, imitation is the best form of flattery , hence ,you ought to be damn glad someone else chose to use it, let alone LINK back to it. THATS CALLED “FREE PUBLICITY !!!!!”

  • Guest

    I believe it was Ovid – whose own work was notably lifted by Shakespeare for Romeo and Juliet and by Shaw for Pygmalion – who said, and I paraphrase, “anything that sounds like truth is mine.”

  • http://onlinemerchantforum.com Mike

    I apologize of someone has already made this point, but when I asked for permission to “use” someone’s work in an ebook I was writing, (not a blog, but it’s online content), they turned out to be a copyright expert.

    I found out that if I was using the work to support my own then I can only quote a paragraph or two within my work. If I wanted to quote more, all I could is summarize and refer them to the original. And for whatever amount I used, I would have to give full credit to the original author for what quoted. So without permission, for a truly derivate work that agrees with the copyrighted material, I can use snippets; with permission, I use as much as the author allows.

    This limitation however goes out the window however if I am a critic (which in this case I was). The idea is that for me to criticize a copyrighted work, I actually have to quote it. Otherwise, the owner can argue he is not getting a fair shake in my work. But by the same token, I don’thave to ask permission because then an author can choose his critics. So, as I long as I am truly critiquing what I quote, and I am being reasonable and truthful in my opinions, I’m safe. That said, there is probably a reasonableness test that someone could look at my work and still say I was being unreasonable in quoting as much as I did… that I didn’t need to quote so much to make my point, or that I didn’t quote enough to be fair, so there’s a balance. Note that quoting more than I critiqued falls under copyright law; not quoting enough could open me up to a libel lawsuit.

    So, if I’m understanding the law correctly, a critic blogger needs to protect himself by quoting enough (to protect against libel) and not too much (to protect against copyright infringement).

    • Guest

      “I found out that if I was using the work to support my own then I can only quote a paragraph or two within my work. ”

      There is some proportion of % used to % of the total work, but I don’t think ANY set amount has actually been set forth in law far as I know.

  • Guest

    “Basically to put this as simply as i can, fair use is whatever the vendor decides it is, the consumer has no real rights , no matter what the law says, the truth is they will always decide the point at which they think you have reached you r fair use limit”

    And TRHIS attitude is WHY it has REMAINED that way.

    We need to grow some balls, and speak up, groups like the EFF can’t continue the fight against overly restrictive copyrights without people, and we can’t get people to make reasonable changes if we remain apathetic like this.

  • http://toptentoyou.blogspot.com topp

    How to fair use?

    I don’t understand.

  • http://www.sunderlandfilms.com Sunderland

    1. What is fair use?

    In copyright law, there is a concept of fair use, also known as; free use, fair dealing, or fair practice.

    Fair use sets out certain actions that may be carried out, but would not normally be regarded as an infringement of the work.

    The idea behind this is that if copyright laws are too restrictive, it may stifle free speech, news reporting, or result in disproportionate penalties for inconsequential or accidental inclusion.
    2. What does fair use allow?

    Under fair use rules, it may be possible to use quotations or excerpts, where the work has been made available to the public, (i.e. published). Provided that:
    * The use is deemed acceptable under the terms of fair dealing.
    * That the quoted material is justified, and no more than is necessary is included.
    * That the source of the quoted material is mentioned, along with the name of the author.
    3. Typical free uses of work include:
    * Inclusion for the purpose of news reporting.
    * Incidental inclusion.
    * National laws typically allow limited private and educational use.
    4. What is incidental inclusion?

    This is where part of a work is unintentionally included. A typical examples of this would be a case where holiday movie inadvertently captured part of a copyright work, such as some background music, or a poster that just happened to on a wall in the background.
    5. Points to keep in mind…

    The actual specifics of what is acceptable will be governed by national laws, and although broadly similar, actual provision will vary from country to country.

    Cases dealing with fair dealing can be complex, as decisions are based on individual circumstances and judgements. This can be a very difficult area of copyright law.

    To avoid problems, if you are in any doubt, you are advised to always get the permission of the owner, prior to use.
    6. UK fair dealing legislation

    For specific details on fair dealing under UK law please refer to our factsheet P-27: Using the work of others.

  • http://www.zebrawatch.com Zebra Man

    As a sports fan and blogger, the most frustrating aspect of Fair Use is that it is only a defense and is basically considered on a case-by-case basis. Major sports leagues with nearly unlimited resources for litigation can claim copyright and take bloggers to court and financially bankrupt them through the court system for posting a single play from a game. The copyright claims made at the beginning and end of games are overstated; they try to enforce rules that they have made up!

    For some interesting reading, google Wendy Seltzer’s battle against the NFL over posting just their bogus copyright warning on the web. In the end, the NFL backed down, but the full story reveals a lot in regard to the bull-headed mentality of the league’s legal arm.

    What is needed is a landmark case against the NFL or some other major sports league to remove their draconian hold over every aspect of their broadcasts. Fair Use needs to be defined as a protection for the press and the blogosphere instead of a defense.

  • http://theronssoapbox.spaces.live.com/blog/ Theron

    There’s no question about Fair Use. It has been underscored by our copyright laws. What we should be concerned about is adaptations to the fair use laws related to journalistic, or journalistic investigative, use of information on the Web, and the continual sanction of its sources.

  • Join for Access to Our Exclusive Web Tools
  • Sidebar Top
  • Sidebar Middle
  • Sign Up For The Free Newsletter
  • Sidebar Bottom