3 ms·

Fair use IS a right to copy. Or more accurately, fair use is a limitation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. The term "affirmative defense" simply me

by kbutler 15y ago

Fair use IS a right to copy. Or more accurately, fair use is a limitation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. The term "affirmative defense" simply means the defendant "affirms" or acknowledges the action, but defends it on specific grounds (in this case, that the copying was a fair use and thus not a violation of copyright). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 107. LIMITATIONS ON EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS: FAIR USE "...the fair use of a copyrighted work...is not an infringement of copyright." The devil (or the lawyer's profits or the danger to user attempting to make fair use of a copyrighted work) is in the details of considering and balancing those four points, and that is done at the discretion of the judge(s) hearing the case. Other limitations to the scope of copyright: § 102. SUBJECT MATTER OF COPYRIGHT: IN GENERAL (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

dredmorbius 15y ago
The distinction that I'm making is this: - Fair use isn't granted by some license-issuing or -exempting authority. It's determined in court. Meaning: you get sued for copyright infringement, you get lawyered up, you get a court date, you defend yourself. You're still out the costs and time, provided your accuser wishes to follow through. Law is very often a battle of attrition and wills. And often stupidity or arrogance among one or more of the parties involved. - It's a defense. You're still making an unauthorized copy. That is, limiting a copyright holder's "exclusive rights to do and to authorize" reproductions, derivative works, etc. In order to assert the defense, you've got to be challenged at it. Simply asserting "fair use" is not sufficient, though a reasonable copyright holder (or her legal counsel) might look at this and say "hrm, he's probably got a point".

by kbutler 15y ago

dredmorbius 15y ago

The distinction that I'm making is this: - Fair use isn't granted by some license-issuing or -exempting authority. It's determined in court. Meaning: you get sued for copyright infringement, you get lawyered up, you get a court date, you defend yourself. You're still out the costs and time, provided your accuser wishes to follow through. Law is very often a battle of attrition and wills. And often stupidity or arrogance among one or more of the parties involved. - It's a defense. You're still making an unauthorized copy. That is, limiting a copyright holder's "exclusive rights to do and to authorize" reproductions, derivative works, etc. In order to assert the defense, you've got to be challenged at it. Simply asserting "fair use" is not sufficient, though a reasonable copyright holder (or her legal counsel) might look at this and say "hrm, he's probably got a point".