Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/02/22
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]"Fair Use" is really intended for academic and publishing use in commentary and review. It might include, of course, a review of, say, a photographic exhibit, but it does not include an extension to simply ripping off someone else's work. By way of example, I am currently reading Carlos d'Este's WARRIOR: A LIFE OF WINSTON CHURCHILL AT WAR 1874 - 1945. I will write a review of this for several maritime and military history lists to which I subscribe. I will probably include specific quotations. That is permissible, even if the review gets picked up by a periodical and I am paid for it. But such fair use must include full attribution or, at the least, have the attribution available if questioned about it. It's really not that odd a doctrine. I cannot, of course, take a paragraph from d'Este and try to pass it off as my own. The Supreme Court has ruled that satire, if obviously such, is not protected by copyright. This decision arose out of a suit against Limbaugh and Shanklin for their spoofing of rock songs, such as "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iraq!" to the tune of the Beach Boy's "Barbara Ann". All of those gazillions of spoofs on American Gothic are similarly protected. And that portrait of Churchill by Karsch has been redone a number of times, often with a bull-dog dressed up as Churchill was. Again, that is protected speech. Marc msmall@aya.yale.edu Cha robh b?s fir gun ghr?s fir!