Constitutionally, the purpose of copyright laws is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Fair Use isn’t really an “exemption”. Fair Use is the fundamental reason why copyright is allowed to exist. The restrictions allowed by copyright law are the limited commercial exemptions from “public domain”, temporarily granted to authors and artists.
All published information is in the public domain unless a specific, copyright exemption temporarily applies to withhold it.
I am reframing the discussion as envisioned by the copyright clause in Article I, Section 8:
[Congress shall have power] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
The purpose of copyright laws is to promote progress of science and art. Temporary exclusivity is the means by which Congress achieves this purpose; exclusivity is not the purpose itself.
That limited time is when an author or inventor may command exclusivity. Outside of that limited time, the work belongs to the audience, not the artist.
When we remember that it is humanity is supposed to be the ultimate beneficiary, “Fair Use” is the fundamental concept, and copyright is the exception. Copyright may exist automatically when a work is created, but that is still a specific, limited, temporary exemption.
Purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes: Courts look at how the party claiming fair use is using the copyrighted work, and are more likely to find that nonprofit educational and noncommercial uses are fair. This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair; instead, courts will balance the purpose and character of the use against the other factors below. Additionally, “transformative” uses are more likely to be considered fair. Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.
Nature of the copyrighted work: This factor analyzes the degree to which the work that was used relates to copyright’s purpose of encouraging creative expression. Thus, using a more creative or imaginative work (such as a novel, movie, or song) is less likely to support a claim of a fair use than using a factual work (such as a technical article or news item). In addition, use of an unpublished work is less likely to be considered fair.
I don’t know many schools willing to bother finding out whether the use was fair.
I don’t know many schools willing to bother finding out whether the use was fair.
It is not the school’s responsibility to bother finding out. It is Disney’s responsibility, as the troll claiming copyright protections, to make the claim that it’s not fair use, and it is the court’s responsibility to determine the validity of such a claim.
Unless Disney decides to intervene, there is no question that it is fair use. Even if a copyright troll does decide to intervene, it is still probably fair use.
I agree it’s the court’s decision and that Disney will likely not bring it to court because schools have little as it is and it’d be a PR nightmare.
As to whether it actually is fair use, I also agree with “probably.”
Because of that, any school’s legal team will recommend against permission slips for Disney movies so teachers can just play them without asking for parent approval like every other school
Educational purposes are fair use.
Constitutionally, the purpose of copyright laws is to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Fair Use isn’t really an “exemption”. Fair Use is the fundamental reason why copyright is allowed to exist. The restrictions allowed by copyright law are the limited commercial exemptions from “public domain”, temporarily granted to authors and artists.
All published information is in the public domain unless a specific, copyright exemption temporarily applies to withhold it.
You sure about that? In the US, the creator of a work has automatic copyright over it, whether it’s published or not: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
If you meant something else, or there’s a modifier to your claim here that I’m not seeing, maybe you could clarify?
I am reframing the discussion as envisioned by the copyright clause in Article I, Section 8:
The purpose of copyright laws is to promote progress of science and art. Temporary exclusivity is the means by which Congress achieves this purpose; exclusivity is not the purpose itself.
That limited time is when an author or inventor may command exclusivity. Outside of that limited time, the work belongs to the audience, not the artist.
When we remember that it is humanity is supposed to be the ultimate beneficiary, “Fair Use” is the fundamental concept, and copyright is the exception. Copyright may exist automatically when a work is created, but that is still a specific, limited, temporary exemption.
As with most legal matters, it depends: https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/index.html
I don’t know many schools willing to bother finding out whether the use was fair.
It is not the school’s responsibility to bother finding out. It is Disney’s responsibility, as the troll claiming copyright protections, to make the claim that it’s not fair use, and it is the court’s responsibility to determine the validity of such a claim.
Unless Disney decides to intervene, there is no question that it is fair use. Even if a copyright troll does decide to intervene, it is still probably fair use.
I agree it’s the court’s decision and that Disney will likely not bring it to court because schools have little as it is and it’d be a PR nightmare.
As to whether it actually is fair use, I also agree with “probably.”
Because of that, any school’s legal team will recommend against permission slips for Disney movies so teachers can just play them without asking for parent approval like every other school