Re: [Videolib] Fair Use Cases

From: Jessica Rosner <maddux2014@gmail.com>
Date: Thu Jul 30 2009 - 10:00:21 PDT

Some blanket statements such as "Fair use" will never cover the streaming or
copying of an entire film are warranted especially around here. I don't care
if it is out of print , rare and or the copyright holder won't let you show
it. I ask again what was the point of the Kinkos case if not to establish
that you could NOT claim "fair use " to copy an entire work ? Has there been
a case since then involving ANY format ( book, article, film) that
supercedes it.
Not that it
really matters but the suggestion that you might somehow increase the
value of something by ripping it off and claiming "Fair Use" does
really upset me. I have heard profs claim well this film is not
available and so if I make a copy off my old VHS I taped of TV ( or
bought but they claim both) than those folks at PATHER or FOX will
see how valuable it is , release it and make money. They do
seriously claim this.

We are sort of dancing around here anyway. Bottom line is an
increasing number of schools are ILLEGALLY streaming & copying films.
It has nothing to do with "Fair Use" or helping generate a market, it
is because their teachers are pressuring them and they figure they
won't get caught. At least lets not pretend
 that UCLA or Princeton
etc streaming CITIZEN KANE, PULP FICTION, CITY LIGHTS . THE LIFE &
TIMES OF HARVEY MILK
for their students to watch on their lap tops is legal. When you wonder why
a lot of indie distributors are gone and the only copy you can get of rare
foreign film is downloaded from a web site in Taiwan and looks like a
grainy 16mm remember that you only wanted to build a bigger market for them
but they just could not wait.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:43 PM, Brewer, Michael <
brewerm@u.library.arizona.edu> wrote:

> Jessica,
>
>
>
> All works are not the same when it comes to fair use. The potential
> effect on the market or value of a film may be much greater than that of a
> poem or article. The purpose of the article may be to inform other
> specialists about new knowledge or information, not make money. The purpose
> of a poem may be sharing self expression with others or making a political
> statement, not generating revenue. The values of these works may not be
> compromised (and may actually be boosted) by fair uses, while a use of an
> entire film may (or may not) have a more serious effect on the value or
> market of that work. Film is also not homogenous. An out of print work
> certainly is different than a current blockbuster. Fair uses in a scholarly
> context could actually create a resurgent market for that film. I think
> making blanket statements about what is or isnít fair goes very much against
> what the law says.
>
>
>
> mb
>
>
>
> Michael Brewer
>
> Team Leader for Undergraduate Services
>
> University of Arizona Library
>
> brewerm@u.library.arizona.edu
>
>
>
> *From:* videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu [mailto:
> videolib-bounces@lists.berkeley.edu] *On Behalf Of *Jessica Rosner
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 30, 2009 9:26 AM
>
> *To:* videolib@lists.berkeley.edu
> *Subject:* Re: [Videolib] Fair Use Cases
>
>
>
> Copyright is copyright though. Legally there is no difference in protecting
> a book, a journal article or a film, just that film is sexier and more
> widely
>
> violated in the general public than written words. There are some special
> rules re media, preservation , etc but none that apply to the situation we
> seem to
>
> be arguing ( streaming, copying for general classroom use etc).
>
>
>
> To be fair you would think the morons at the studio's would take action the
> way publishers have but they seem to be too busy preventing teachers from
> using
>
> film CLIPS to notice what it going on but that does not change the law.
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Susan Albrecht <albrechs@wabash.edu>
> wrote:
>
> Kind of disappointing that none of the cases in the list appears to
> pertain directly to film, though. Bah.
>
> Susan
>
>
> At 11:05 AM 7/30/2009, you wrote:
> >All,
> >
> >I asked several well-respected copyright scholars about the question
> >of "portion" in the law. They all agreed that this has not been
> >understood in case law as a limit what can be justified as a fair
> >use and provided a whole list of cases where entire uses were upheld
> >as fair. One of the scholars is currently working on a chapter for
> >a book that details all the fair use cases in the past 10 years.
> >None of these cases fit the entire book or entire film argument that
> >often comes up when discussions of fair use occur on this list and
> >it is not my purpose to put these forward as support for such
> >uses. I am simply arguing against reductionist approaches to fair use.
> >
> >Here is his response:
> >
> >here's a few cases that fair resulted and amount was 100%
> >
> >Courts recently have stressed that if the purpose (first factor) is
> >good, the relationship to the third ("how much" factor), is not how
> >much but have you taken only as much as is necessary to effect or
> >accomplish that "good" purpose, in a case like the TurnItIn database
> >(plagiarism detection) in order for the database to be effective and
> >accomplish that good purpose of plagiarism detection, 100% of each
> >student paper is needed, courts tend then to conclude that this
> >factor given the circumstances is of little help, neutral, etc.
> >
> >1. Nunez v. Caribbean International News Corp., 235 F.3d 18 (1st
> >Cir. 2000) (use of publicity head shot in a news story fair use).
> >
> >2. Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir. 2003)
> >(minimized copies of Internet photographs in image index website fair
> use).
> >
> >3. A.V. v. iParadigms, Ltd., 562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009) (use of
> >student papers in plagiarism detection database fair use).
> >
> >4. Field v. Google, Inc., 412 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006)
> >(Google, Inc. caching of images fair use).
> >
> >5. Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., 487 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2007)
> >(Google, Inc. cache of images fair use).
> >
> >6. Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464
> >U.S. 417 (1984) (home recording (time-shifting) of broadcast
> >television programs including commercials to watch at a later time fair
> use).
> >
> >7. Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 975 F.2d 832
> >(Fed Cir. 1992) (reverse engineering (copying) of computer program
> >as intermediate step to extracting unprotected elements can be a fair
> use).
> >
> >8. Evolution, Inc. v. SunTrust Bank, 342 F. Supp. 2d 943 (D. Kan.
> >2004) (de-compilation of software in order to extract out
> >unprotected elements fair use).
> >
> >9. Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir.
> >1992) (de-compilation of software program to extract unprotected
> >elements fair use).
> >
> >10.Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d
> >596 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied 531 U.S. 871 (2000) (copying
> >computer code to extract unprotected elements fair use).
> >
> >mb
>
> Susan Albrecht
> Acquisitions Manager
> Wabash College Lilly Library
> Crawfordsville, IN
> x6216
> albrechs@wabash.edu
>
>
> *********************************************************************************
> "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."--Neil Peart
>
> *********************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues
> relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control,
> preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and
> related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective
> working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication
> between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and
> distributors.
>
>
>
> VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues
> relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control,
> preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and
> related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective
> working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication
> between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and
> distributors.
>
>

VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.
Received on Thu Jul 30 10:00:40 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 20 2009 - 15:15:17 PDT