PDA

View Full Version : Fair Use



King Neptune
04-27-2013, 02:48 AM
I just included a historic comment in a story, and I attributed it to the one who said it. Is that covered under "fair use", or will I have to get permission? I haven't read copyright law for several years, and I suspect that it has been changed since I last look. It was my understanding that using a short passage of something was acceptable as long as it is properly attributed. Does that refer only to creative works, or would it apply to anything newsworthy?
I just an article on the U.S. Copyright Office site, and didn't learn anything.

Siri Kirpal
04-27-2013, 03:24 AM
Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

If it's a historic quote, you're probably good to go. And as long as it's attributed, you're probably good to go anyway, if it's short and you're not using it to damage the person in any way.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

Maryn
04-27-2013, 03:36 AM
I'm not a lawyer, and happily defer to any who weigh in, but my understanding is that if the work quoted remains under copyright protection, you can't use it except for purposes of satire or parody, review or critique, or academia, with or without attribution. Attributing it to the person who said or wrote it isn't the same as getting permission.

Can you get away with it? Probably. But it would be a bummer to learn the hard way I'm wrong about that.

Maryn, waiting for the lawyers

slhuang
04-27-2013, 03:41 AM
IANAL

In my opinion that sort of thing falls under fair use. In my understanding of the court's definitions, it would also be fair use (IANAL IANAL IANAL!). But. But! There have been plenty of instances of people using something fairly who were still sued. And they usually didn't have the money to fight it, even if they might have won. So they gave in, and had an unpleasant time of it.

My point is: Even if what you are doing is indisputably fair use, if the quoted person is someone litigious (like a musician backed by the RIAA), it might be the better option to drop the quote anyway unless you are prepared to go to bat in court about it.

Nekko
04-27-2013, 04:34 AM
How historic is the quote?

I've been told I can quote Shakespeare, if I attribute. But the he's been dead quite a while...

King Neptune
04-27-2013, 04:35 AM
My point is: Even if what you are doing is indisputably fair use, if the quoted person is someone litigious (like a musician backed by the RIAA), it might be the better option to drop the quote anyway unless you are prepared to go to bat in court about it.

That's why I have already requested pemission. The holder of the copyright may not wnat to try to bar my use, but the professional manager may want to litigate, just because that's what they do.

King Neptune
04-27-2013, 04:37 AM
How historic is the quote?

I've been told I can quote Shakespeare, if I attribute. But the he's been dead quite a while...

Most historic than not, but that one is not a matter of artistic copyright, and was literally reported in news, so I think that I'm O.K. on that.

King Neptune
04-27-2013, 04:40 AM
I'm not a lawyer, and happily defer to any who weigh in, but my understanding is that if the work quoted remains under copyright protection, you can't use it except for purposes of satire or parody, review or critique, or academia, with or without attribution. Attributing it to the person who said or wrote it isn't the same as getting permission.

Can you get away with it? Probably. But it would be a bummer to learn the hard way I'm wrong about that.

Maryn, waiting for the lawyers

That is exactly what I understand also, but it's all a matter of interpretation. I think that what I wrote is technically under the parody classification, but that's a matter of interpretation.

veinglory
04-27-2013, 06:30 AM
Is it pre-1923?

King Neptune
04-27-2013, 05:38 PM
Is it pre-1923?

No, it's only half that age.