Measuring Fair Use The Four Factors Copyright Overview by Rich Stim. Unfortunately, the only way to get a definitive answer on whether a particular use is a fair use is to have it resolved in federal court. Judges use four factors to resolve fair use disputes, as discussed in detail below. Its important to understand that these factors are only guidelines that courts are free to adapt to particular situations on a casebycase basis. In other words, a judge has a great deal of freedom when making a fair use determination, so the outcome in any given case can be hard to predict. The four factors judges consider are the purpose and character of your usethe nature of the copyrighted workthe amount and substantiality of the portion taken, andthe effect of the use upon the potential market. Educational Fair Use Guidelines. A favorite Northern California tennis camp, the Lele Forood Stanford Nike Tennis Camp offers overnight and day camps for all levels and high school players. By Brandon R. Peters, MD When considering the means to optimize wellbeing and function, there must be a prominent place reserved for sleep. Shes known in local newspapers as 23yearold Emily Doe a pseudonym to protect her privacy amid an emotional court battle in which former Stanford. Since the current copyright law was adopted, various organizations and scholars have established guidelines for educational uses. These guidelines are not part of the Copyright Act and are summarized in Chapter 7, which deals with academic and educational permissions. The Transformative Factor The Purpose and Character of Your Use. In a 1. 99. 4 case, the Supreme Court emphasized this first factor as being an important indicator of fair use. At issue is whether the material has been used to help create something new or merely copied verbatim into another work. When taking portions of copyrighted work, ask yourself the following questions Has the material you have taken from the original work been transformed by adding new expression or meaning Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights, and understandingsIn a parody, for example, the parodist transforms the original by holding it up to ridicule. At the same time, a work does not become a parody simply because the author models characters after those found in a famous work. Purposes such as scholarship, research, or education may also qualify as transformative uses because the work is the subject of review or commentary. EXAMPLERoger borrows several quotes from the speech given by the CEO of a logging company. Roger prints these quotes under photos of old growth redwoods in his environmental newsletter. By juxtaposing the quotes with the photos of endangered trees, Roger has transformed the remarks from their original purpose and used them to create a new insight. StanfordBerkeley Food Innovation and Design Symposium Delicious Innovation. Thursday, May 25th, 2017. The Atrium, Peterson Building 550 Stanford University. We just finished our second Hacking for Defense class at Stanford. Eight teams presented their Lessons Learned presentations. Hacking for Defense is a battletested. The copying would probably be permitted as a fair use. Determining what is transformativeand the degree of transformationis often challenging. For example, the creation of a Harry Potter encyclopedia was determined to be slightly transformative because it made the Harry Potter terms and lexicons available in one volume, but this transformative quality was not enough to justify a fair use defense in light of the extensive verbatim use of text from the Harry Potter books. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. RDR Books, 5. 75 F. Supp. 2d 5. 13 S. D. N. Y. 2. 00. 8. The Nature of the Copyrighted Work. Stanford Pm R Program' title='Stanford Pm R Program' />Because the dissemination of facts or information benefits the public, you have more leeway to copy from factual works such as biographies than you do from fictional works such as plays or novels. In addition, you will have a stronger case of fair use if you copy the material from a published work than an unpublished work. The scope of fair use is narrower for unpublished works because an author has the right to control the first public appearance of his or her expression. Stanford Pm R Program' title='Stanford Pm R Program' />The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Taken. The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use. However, even if you take a small portion of a work, your copying will not be a fair use if the portion taken is the heart of the work. In other words, you are more likely to run into problems if you take the most memorable aspect of a work. For example, it would probably not be a fair use to copy the opening guitar riff and the words I cant get no satisfaction from the song Satisfaction. This ruleless is moreis not necessarily true in parody cases. A parodist is permitted to borrow quite a bit, even the heart of the original work, in order to conjure up the original work. Thats because, as the Supreme Court has acknowledged, the heart is also what most readily conjures up the original for parody, and it is the heart at which parody takes aim. Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music, 5. U. S. 5. 69 1. 99. The Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market. Another important fair use factor is whether your use deprives the copyright owner of income or undermines a new or potential market for the copyrighted work. Depriving a copyright owner of income is very likely to trigger a lawsuit. This is true even if you are not competing directly with the original work. Stanford Pm R Program' title='Stanford Pm R Program' />For example, in one case an artist used a copyrighted photograph without permission as the basis for wood sculptures, copying all elements of the photo. The artist earned several hundred thousand dollars selling the sculptures. When the photographer sued, the artist claimed his sculptures were a fair use because the photographer would never have considered making sculptures. The court disagreed, stating that it did not matter whether the photographer had considered making sculptures what mattered was that a potential market for sculptures of the photograph existed. Rogers v. Koons, 9. F. 2d 3. 01 2d Cir. Oracle Linux 6 5 Mount Ntfs Drive On Linux here. Again, parody is given a slightly different fair use analysis with regard to the impact on the market. Its possible that a parody may diminish or even destroy the market value of the original work. That is, the parody may be so good that the public can never take the original work seriously again. Although this may cause a loss of income, its not the same type of loss as when an infringer merely appropriates the work. As one judge explained, The economic effect of a parody with which we are concerned is not its potential to destroy or diminish the market for the originalany bad review can have that effectbut whether it fulfills the demand for the original. Fisher v. Dees, 7. F. 2d 4. Cir. 1. 98. Too Small for Fair Use The De Minimis Defense. In some cases, the amount of material copied is so small or de minimis that the court permits it without even conducting a fair use analysis. For example, in the motion picture Seven, several copyrighted photographs appeared in the film, prompting the copyright owner of the photographs to sue the producer of the movie. Cisco Global Price List Xls there. The court held that the photos appear fleetingly and are obscured, severely out of focus, and virtually unidentifiable. The court excused the use of the photographs as de minimis and didnt require a fair use analysis. Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp., 1. F. 3d 2. 15 2d Cir. As with fair use, there is no bright line test for determining a de minimis use. For example, in another case, a court determined that the use of a copyrighted poster for a total of 2. TV show Roc was not de minimis. What distinguished the use of the poster from the use of the photographs in the Seven case The court stated that the poster was clearly visible and recognizable with sufficient observable detail for the average lay observer to view the artists imagery and colorful style. Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc., 1. F. 3d 7. 0 2d Cir.