Chad Irby wrote:
Vince Brannigan wrote:


Im licensed to practice law in Maryland and D.C.

Well chow down on this

TITLE 17 CHAPTER 1 Sec. 107. Prev | Next

Sec. 107. - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A,
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by
reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
means specified by that section, for purposes
such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement
of copyright. In determining whether the use made
of a work in any particular case is a
fair use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial
nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the 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.

Remember news stories are not copyrighted newspapers are.


Nope. Each story in a joint work is copyrighted separately.

but not sold separately. This newspaper is the "copyrighted work as a
whoel" that is what has a market.

If your
point were true, then the Washington Post could use entire stories from
competitors' papers, verbatim, without having to pay syndication costs.

nonsense. teh washington psot is a commercial publisher and competitor
of wother newspapers. I can do things that they cannot

Under your definition, a rival paper could use an entire story. For a
parallel example, one song off of an album is still covered under
copyright, whereas your example would suggest that it would not.


it is "covered under copyright" but at least in traditonal analysis the
album not the song is the work as a whole. the development of digital
media and the capability of selling individual songs hs arguably changed
this argument.

By posting the entire story that started this thread in its entirety,
the first poster broke copyright, since that breaks the "substantiality"
part of the law you so kindly cited for us. A sentence or so, up to a
paragraph (if necessary), but not the whole story.


Nonsense.
Factual works are simply less protected, since thereis no copyright in
the underlying facts.

so on all of the above the copying news stories for the purpose of
criticizing the reporting is fair use.


Nope. Using *excerpts* from a story might be okay, if you hadn't posted
the entire story. And as far as "criticism" goes, there wasn't any
criticism attached to the first post.

Except that psoting here can be for the purpose of inspiring criticism.


So you're completely wrong about copyright on at least two points. Note
that the law does *not* say "pick one of these reasons and completely
ignore the rest," it says "shall include."

Its a common 4 factor test. How a court weighs one factor agsint another
depends on the Court. I dont think you will find any apellate decisons
holding that such a posting is a violation by the individual.


The "purpose and character" part *might* have a bearing, but since it's
trivially easy to include a link to the full story, that would probably
fall through, too.

that is not part of the purpose and character element, but the "effect
on the market" element.


The "potential market" part could be a loophole, but since you
effectively "published" a few thousand copies to the Internet (and
therefore the world), you missed out on that, too.


This is actually a respectable issue, if they sell individual articles
in the aftermarket.


Oh, and if you do your homework, the Courts of appeal in Md. and DC
maintain lists of those licensed to practice.


There are a lot of people licensed to practice law. There are a lot of
people licensed to practice medicine. There are a lot of people
licensed to fly planes. That doesn't mean they're all good at all of it.

Sure, but you Suggested I was not. I psot under my real name and its
easy to check.



It's like the old joke: "What do you call someone who graduated last in
his class at the worst medical school?" "Doctor."

(You should have noticed by now that "argument from authority" doesn't
fly too well on Usenet. But I've noticed that many lawyers rely on that
when they have a really weak case.)

As you point out, internet is an excellet palce for textaul analysis and
commentary.
that is why users has a correspondingly large right to "fair use"

Vince Brannigan