4 ms·
You're over-reading the Supreme Court case. They said that in that particular case, 300 words from a 200,000 word book was an infringement. That doesn't mean
by michael_dorfman 16y ago
You're over-reading the Supreme Court case. They said that in that particular case, 300 words from a 200,000 word book was an infringement. That doesn't mean that all 300 word quotes are necessarily infringing.
There are criteria for judging "fair use"; Jeff refers to them in the article. All require judgment, and in the end, if both parties want to push it far enough, it is a judge who will decide how a particular case meets the criteria.
- acqq 16y agoI fully agree that based on that case we can't establish the unique amount of percentage of the material. But also note how little of material can be considered infringement: The article I linked contains much more criteria than Jeff presented and has even more dramatic quote: in music "samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation."" I can imagine that for usage of the video material the court can be as much restrictive as for music.