Skip to main content

Fair Use Part 2: Subtleties

Now that you've had the time to digest the basics of fair use, it's time to talk about some common misunderstandings and problems that arise with regard to this aspect of copyright law. As you might have noticed from last time, fair use a complex issue, one in which various concerns must be weighed with no guiding standard as to how much impact each factor should have. Even more problematically, US courts have stayed away from fair use cases for the most part. Very few actually reach a judge, and only four fair use cases have been heard by the Supreme Court. As such, there is very little jurisprudence to clarify the law. As such, fair use is a ripe subject for confusion and debate. Let's begin with the most crucial clarification.

Fair Use is not a right
While one might hear talk about “fair use rights,” there really is no such thing. The National Information Infrastructure White Paper on Intellectual Property (released Sept 1995; for more information see: ) was quite keen to point out exactly that fact. Instead, fair use must be understood as an affirmative defense. So, what's the difference? Well, the real difference is a matter of presumption. If fair use spelled out a series of rights, then the audience presumably has the right to use copyrighted material under the specified conditions. In such cases, infringement suits must show that the use somehow falls outside the scope of the guidelines. As an affirmative defense, fair use is a way of excusing an infringement on legally recognized grounds. In other words, any unauthorized use is presumed an infringement, but the infringement can be excused on certain legally recognized guidelines.

If that difference is still too subtle, think about it as a difference in the burden of proof. If fair use were a right (or a collection of rights), then the copyright-holder would have to proof that the use fell outside of the scope of those rights. As an affirmative defense, any use of copyrighted material is presumed to be infringing, and the defendant would has to show that, as a matter of fact, the use falls within the guidelines. In the former case, the burden of proof is really on the plaintiff; in the latter case, the defendant must show that the use was in fact fair, and failure to do so automatically results in a finding of infringement.

While fair use is often discussed as check on copyright, something to preserve the public good against copyright monopolies, it is actually much weaker than that. As an affirmative defense, fair use has too little force to really protect any public good. While educational use is supposed to be fair, Georgia State is involved in a suit over course reserve texts (full story here: ). If anything counts as an educational use, I would expect course reserves would, but some major academic publishers disagree. Furthermore, the guidelines the publishers would like to impose (available from this story: ) are draconian, to say the least. Speaking of draconian, it's is likely high time we move on to another clarification.


Popular posts from this blog

Justifications for Intellectual Property Part 1: Utilitarianism

There is no way this tutorial series would be complete without some discussion of justifications for intellectual property. While not necessarily a matter of law, some knowledge of the philosophical foundations will provide a better sense of the values at stake in intellectual property debates. Notice, for instance, that the tutorials on fair use were punctuated with appeals to values, social goods, and individual rights. Without an understanding of the moral and political framework against which the law stands, one can very easily find oneself in a stalemate, with one value pitted against another and no way of deciding which should prevail. To understand the jurisprudence around intellectual property rights, one has to have some idea of the justifying theories to which attorneys and judges appeal in their arguments and decisions. So, without further ado, let's get to the tutorial.
There are three main ways of justifying intellectual property rights: the Utilitarian theory, the Lab…

Justifications for Intellectual Property Part 2: Labor-Desert Theories

I know it's been a little while, but I want to finish this tutorial series rather than abandoning it and moving on to other topics. Of course, I would have liked to have finished it by now, but various research and teaching-related obstacles have kept me nose down in the Real rather than preparing content to be released into the internet. Nevertheless, I'm returning to routine, so I'm going to release this installment today, rather than wait for my usual MWF release schedule.
At any rate, let's pick up where we left off and talk about justifications for intellectual property rights. While the utilitarian justification discussed in the last post enjoys the status of having been enshrined in law, scholars and jurists have often brought in other property-justifying theories. Perhaps the most popular of these are Labor-Desert justifications, best exemplified by John Locke (the philosopher, not the character on Lost).
In his Second Treatise on Civil Government, Locke const…

Justifications for Intellectual Property Part 3: Self-Expression Justifications

The third dominant justifying theory for intellectual property rights is often called the Self-Expression justification. Most scholars attribute it to Hegel, but it ultimately has roots in Kant. While few philosophers even addressed intellectual property, Immanuel Kant discusses the sale of pirated books in Metaphysics of Morals. Kant argues that reprinting a book after first publication is a violation of the author's right to entrust his communication to a particular publisher. Viewing books as importantly communicative, not material, in nature, Kant claims that a publisher is essentially a spokesperson, someone designated by an author to communicate his ideas to others. Reprinters interrupt this process by taking it on themselves to communicate the author's idea, without his consent. Reprinting is then akin to removing the author's control over the communication of his ideas. While Kant's argument does not get you an entire system of intellectual property, he does dr…