Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 19:11:47 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Boston Globe Article (fwd) Message-ID: <3C1EB3F3.C18433AE@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.LNX.4.43.0112171519350.17714-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Jeremy C. Reed" wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Jamie Bowden wrote:
> > Case law with respect to fair use is very specific that a single artice
> > in full from a magazine or newspaper is fair use. I just watched this
>
> You must have missed the previous emails about this. There are guidelines
> that help define "fair use".
>
> > flamewar a month ago on a list with people who are lawyers in real life.
> > Copyright law is complicated and ugly, but they all agreed on this point.
>
> I guess these lawyers don't know about copyrights and fair use. Or this is
> misunderstood.
>
> Again: I don't know of any credible publishing company that republishes
> others' articles without permission.
We are not talking in the context of publication by a publishing
company, we are talking about "fair use", which most often does
not involve publishing companies.
Please see:
Williams & Wilkins v. United States, 172 U.S.P.Q. 670
(Ct. Cl. 1972), rev'd, 487 F.2d 1345 (Ct. Cl. 1973),
aff'd by an equally divided court, 420 U.S. 376 (1975).
487 F.2d at 1346-47. The publisher, Williams & Wilkins,
published 37 journals dealing with medical specialties
and alleged that four of these journals were illegally
copied by the defendants. Id. at 1347. In 1970, the NIH
library distributed 93,000 copies of journal articles to
in-house staff and researchers. Id. at 1348. The NLM
library made 120,000 copies of journal articles which
were distributed to other libraries, government agencies,
or outside patrons consisting of “private or commercial
organizations, particularly drug companies.” Id. at 1349.
The "suggest[ion] that the copying of an entire
copyrighted work, any such work, cannot ever be
'fair use,' . . . is an overbroad generalization,
unsupported by the decisions and rejected by years
of accepted practice." *Williams & Wilkins*, 487
F.2d at 1353.(10)
And (U.S. Supreme Court majority decision):
*Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.*,
464 U.S. 417, 429 (1984) ("*Sony*") that:
The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are
neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a
special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is
a means by which an important public purpose may be
achieved.
I think that "American Geophysical v. Texaco" is also incredibly
relevent, in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of Texaco
to make full copies of research journal articles.
See also:
http://www.nita.org/lexisarticles.htm
http://vls.law.vill.edu/students/orgs/sports/back_issues/volume1/issue1/fairuse.html
http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/web/newopinions.nsf/4bc2cbe0ce5be94e88256927007a37b9/53365d33bd6623fc8825695e005e9ee5?OpenDocument
For future reference: I suggest the Google search:
/"case law" "fair use" apellate entirety/
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C1EB3F3.C18433AE>