[Leica] Re: Fair use -- Of Gee Bee's Photos?

[sonc.hegr at gmail.com (Sonny Carter)]

>
> One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to
> reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or
> phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in 
> sections
> 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. 
> Code<http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107>).
> One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use."
> Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the
> doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over
> the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright
> law.
>
> Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the
> reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as
> criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
> Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining
> whether or not a particular use is fair:
>
>    1.
>
>    the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of
>    commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
>    2.
>
>    the nature of the copyrighted work;
>    3.
>
>    amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
>    copyrighted work as a whole; and
>    4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
>    copyrighted work.
>
> The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not
> easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that
> may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the
> copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
>
> The 1961 *Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of
> the U.S. Copyright Law* cites examples of activities that courts have
> regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for
> purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a
> scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the
> author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work
> parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a 
> news
> report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of
> a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a
> work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or
> judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in
> a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being
> reported."
>
> Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it
> does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in
> the work.
>
> The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner
> before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this
> permission.
>
> When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material
> should be avoided unless the doctrine of "fair use" would clearly apply to
> the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use
> may be considered "fair" nor advise on possible copyright violations. If
> there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.
>
> FL-102, Revised July 2006
> ------------------------------
>
>  Home <http://www.copyright.gov/>  |  *Contact 
> Us*<http://www.copyright.gov/help/> |
> *Legal Notices* <http://www.loc.gov/homepage/legal.html>  |  *Freedom of
> Information Act (FOIA)* <http://www.copyright.gov/foia/>  |  *Library of
> Congress* <http://www.loc.gov/>
>
> U.S. Copyright Office
> 101 Independence Avenue SE
> Washington, DC 20559-6000
> (202) 707-3000
>
>
>
>
> Lawrence Zeitlin wrote:
>
>> This morning the CBS TV show "Sunday Morning" featured the work of Shepard
>> Fairy, the street artist whose rip off of the AP photo of Barack Obama
>> sparked a lawsuit. While not exactly condoning Fairy's actions, the story
>> tried to justify the point that artists were free to violate the copyright
>> laws if it was done in the name of art. Examples used included Andy 
>> Warhol's
>> Campbell Soup can and Marcel Duchamp's Mona Lisa with a moustache. Apart
>> from the inconvenient fact that the Mona Lisa was never copyrighted, does
>> the LUG consider this "Fair Use." Could I take one of Gee Bee's pictures 
>> of
>> the Lake Country, stick a sunflower on it, and call it 'Kansas as it 
>> should
>> be."
>>
>> How much alteration of an image does the LUG think is necessary before a
>> work can be considered original and not derivative? Is it the actual image
>> that is important or the artist's or photographer's intent? As a point of
>> reference, my wife, who is a well respected artist, refuses to paint from 
>> a
>> photograph which she, herself, has not taken. She won't even paint from 
>> any
>> of mine. (I hope this is a tribute to her sterling character and not a
>> critique of my photographs.)
>>
>> Larry Z
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>



-- 
Regards,

Sonny
http://www.sonc.com
http://sonc.stumbleupon.com/
Natchitoches, Louisiana
USA