3 ms·

Those appear to be Stanford's own guidelines on the subject. As far as I know, there are no actual hard and fast rules and one has to decide on a case-by-case

by Natsu 14y ago

Those appear to be Stanford's own guidelines on the subject. As far as I know, there are no actual hard and fast rules and one has to decide on a case-by-case basis after applying the four factor test. That part of the statute seems to be there because legislators believed that making a bunch of copies of something for classroom use was likely to be fair use and there was enough concern over protecting that use case to mention it explicitly. Incidentally, there are many sets of guidelines like the one you cite. Here are a couple others: http://www.adec.edu/admin/papers/fair10-17.html http://www.adec.edu/admin/papers/fair10-17.html http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=copyrightarticle&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=26700 http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=copyrightarticle&#38...

danso 14y ago
There are no "hard and fast rules" on fair use, just as there are no "hard and fast rules" about what makes slander, slander. Or what makes police brutality, brutal (in an illegal sense). But yet both are still against the law. I'm not saying that it's easy to define fair use. I'm saying the OP seems to have a dishonest reading of the law if he's trying to assert that "fair use" means academia can reproduce copyrighted work and consider it "fair" because it's for educational purposes. That is completely missing the entire concept of "fair use".
- Natsu 14y ago
  The fact is that a teacher making a bunch of copies of something as hand-outs for their class is so common and benign a use case as to be mentioned in the statute, just to ensure that it could not be precluded by factor #3. Educational use itself is part of factor #1. In any scenario where a teacher was copying educational materials for a class, I would have a hard time seeing it as anything but fair use barring unusual circumstances. Which was, I think, the point they were trying to make.

by Natsu 14y ago

danso 14y ago

There are no "hard and fast rules" on fair use, just as there are no "hard and fast rules" about what makes slander, slander. Or what makes police brutality, brutal (in an illegal sense). But yet both are still against the law. I'm not saying that it's easy to define fair use. I'm saying the OP seems to have a dishonest reading of the law if he's trying to assert that "fair use" means academia can reproduce copyrighted work and consider it "fair" because it's for educational purposes. That is completely missing the entire concept of "fair use".

Natsu 14y ago
The fact is that a teacher making a bunch of copies of something as hand-outs for their class is so common and benign a use case as to be mentioned in the statute, just to ensure that it could not be precluded by factor #3. Educational use itself is part of factor #1. In any scenario where a teacher was copying educational materials for a class, I would have a hard time seeing it as anything but fair use barring unusual circumstances. Which was, I think, the point they were trying to make.