3 ms·

How large? Copying some verbatim is still fine under fair use.

by theptip 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago
Copying entire works is fine under fair use in certain circumstances, too. (See, e.g., time-shifting.)
- theptip 3y ago
  For written text? Not aware of any examples, can you share any? (To be clear by copying I mean repeating the text in your derived work, perhaps I should have been more explicit. The crux of this case is whether “copying into training set” counts as copying the whole work. )
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    The first examples that comes to mind is reproducing an entire copyright-protected article, either a single copy for personal use by a researcher or multiple copies for classroom use.
    - jazzyjackson 3y ago
      Right, determined fair use by the supreme court in Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States. You can walk into a library and make a wholesale copy for research purposes. The case involved a medical journal publisher suing medical doctors, who made a strong argument that their ability to make copies was a matter of life and death. Winner: Xerox. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_%26_Wilkins_Co._v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_%26_Wilkins_Co._v._...
    - DoughnutHole 3y ago
      That's an interesting example because it illustrates out how fair use is in part defined by its effect on the market. A teacher copying a New York Times article verbatim and distributing it to a classroom for the purpose of analysis or criticism is likely to be held by the courts as fair use. On the other hand a teacher photocopying an entire textbook (or distributing a PDF) would probably not be considered fair use. Both are copying educational material in full, but they have a different impact on the market. Distributing copies of an old news article to 30 students realistically isn't a direct substitute for 30 subscriptions to The New York Times. But a textbook publisher's business model specifically revolves around selling its textbooks to students - the teacher is distributing their copyrighted material to their target market and removing any incentive for the students to pay the publisher.
      - pclmulqdq 3y ago
        Yes, the damage to the market of the original is a key factor in a fair use analysis. It makes you wonder why "Open"AI started getting into legal trouble only when they closed everything down and became a commercial project. When they were a research project, stepping on copyrights was a lot more acceptible (both socially and legally).
  - RC_ITR 3y ago
    Have you heard of 'quotations'? Plenty of works quote and cite other copywritten works and it's considered transformative because usually the work is building upon or commenting on the quote.
    - tyingq 3y ago
      The context was copying entire works in this particular leaf of the main thread.
      - RC_ITR 3y ago
        Yes, and plenty of people write criticisms of entire song lyrics or poems, effectively republishing the entire thing. This is actually a huge area of debate on Youtube as Google often errs on your side of the argument (they can choose to demonetize whatever they want), even if they work is technically not infringing.

How large? Copying some verbatim is still fine under fair use.

dragonwriter 3y ago

Copying entire works is fine under fair use in certain circumstances, too. (See, e.g., time-shifting.)

theptip 3y ago
For written text? Not aware of any examples, can you share any? (To be clear by copying I mean repeating the text in your derived work, perhaps I should have been more explicit. The crux of this case is whether “copying into training set” counts as copying the whole work. )
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  The first examples that comes to mind is reproducing an entire copyright-protected article, either a single copy for personal use by a researcher or multiple copies for classroom use.
  - jazzyjackson 3y ago
    Right, determined fair use by the supreme court in Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States. You can walk into a library and make a wholesale copy for research purposes. The case involved a medical journal publisher suing medical doctors, who made a strong argument that their ability to make copies was a matter of life and death. Winner: Xerox. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_%26_Wilkins_Co._v._United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_%26_Wilkins_Co._v._...
  - DoughnutHole 3y ago
    That's an interesting example because it illustrates out how fair use is in part defined by its effect on the market. A teacher copying a New York Times article verbatim and distributing it to a classroom for the purpose of analysis or criticism is likely to be held by the courts as fair use. On the other hand a teacher photocopying an entire textbook (or distributing a PDF) would probably not be considered fair use. Both are copying educational material in full, but they have a different impact on the market. Distributing copies of an old news article to 30 students realistically isn't a direct substitute for 30 subscriptions to The New York Times. But a textbook publisher's business model specifically revolves around selling its textbooks to students - the teacher is distributing their copyrighted material to their target market and removing any incentive for the students to pay the publisher.
    - pclmulqdq 3y ago
      Yes, the damage to the market of the original is a key factor in a fair use analysis. It makes you wonder why "Open"AI started getting into legal trouble only when they closed everything down and became a commercial project. When they were a research project, stepping on copyrights was a lot more acceptible (both socially and legally).
- RC_ITR 3y ago
  Have you heard of 'quotations'? Plenty of works quote and cite other copywritten works and it's considered transformative because usually the work is building upon or commenting on the quote.
  - tyingq 3y ago
    The context was copying entire works in this particular leaf of the main thread.
    - RC_ITR 3y ago
      Yes, and plenty of people write criticisms of entire song lyrics or poems, effectively republishing the entire thing. This is actually a huge area of debate on Youtube as Google often errs on your side of the argument (they can choose to demonetize whatever they want), even if they work is technically not infringing.