Some librarians express concern that employing one’s fairuse rights in good faith may inadvertently make material available for potential misuse by others. But— just as they must now—all future users will have to engage in fairuse analysis for themselves and in their own context. Libraries should of course be prepared to assist students and others who have questions about how to exercise their own rights with regard to library materials, but the ultimate responsibility will lie with the user, not the library. But—just as they do now—libraries that employ fairuse responsibly to make material available to students, to researchers, or even to public view are unlikely to have legal liability for uninvited and inappropriate downstream uses. Perfect safety and absolute certainty are extremely rare in copyright law, as in many areas of law, and of life. Rather than sit idle until risk is reduced to zero, institutions often employ “risk management,” a healthy approach to policy making that seeks to enable important projects to go forward despite inevitable uncertainty by identifying possible risks (legal and otherwise) and reducing them to acceptable levels. This code of best practices should be of great assistance in arriving at rational risk management strategies, as it provides a more accurate picture of the risk (or lack thereof)
In addition to their larger, higher resolution counterparts, “thumbnail images” (low resolution, small images), serve a transformative purpose, rendering an aesthetic work into a finding aid, or serving as a factual “data point” about the nature or identity of materials in particular websites or online resources. As the amount of information grows on the Web, these kinds of sorting, linking, and identification tools on course websites and other online tools are becoming increasingly important, especially in a research, educational, or scholarly context. Principle: To the extent that use of a specific image for teaching or research is a fairuse, then placing those same images in course websites or in other interactive teaching media for the same purposes should also be fair. Such uses should be fair regardless of the media formats or resolution in which those materials appear. This is the case whether or not those materials remain within such sites or media on an ongoing basis, or on a shorter basis, so long as they continue to serve an educational or scholarly purpose.
Whereas several countries and interest groups favour new international treaties covering copyright exceptions, authors are concerned that if introduced, such treaties will weaken copyright protection and remove important sources of income which may have been previously generated by copyright licences. The Copyright and other Neighbouring Rights Act, 2006 provides for legislation with regards to intellectual rights. There are, however, some key concerns that limit authors from fully enjoying the benefits of authorship such as an unpredictable environment and infringements on academic and non-fiction works. Notwithstanding the different licensing systems and copyright protection avenues, custodians of copyright works have continued to advocate for open access, creative commons and institutional repositories. However, increased access to materials without restrictions has resulted in copyright infringement, especially in the works that fall into legal exceptions of fairuse for educational purposes, and in libraries. Indeed, at the 28th meeting of the Standing Committee on Copyright & Related Rights (SCCR) in Geneva, 2014, member states “agreed to disagree” on any conclusions on copyright exceptions for libraries and archives . A study to provide an opinion of the extent of copyright infringement is therefore crucial to ensure that increased access and use of copyright works does not limit the owner’s expected rights.
182. Developing a market that seemed to be simply potential at the moment of crea- tion reduces the cost or the risk of an accident but does not eliminate it. The copyright owner may not without more pre-empt exploitative uses within a mar- ket simply because he or she has managed to develop that market. Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd., 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006) illustrates that point. Defendant’s book, Grateful Dead: The Illustrated Trip, which takes the reader through the history of the well celebrated rock band, contained thumbnail images of copyrighted concert posters. After finding that the secondary use was transformative, the Second Circuit noted that the fact that the plaintiff had al- ready been engaging in the licensing of its images for use in book publications did not tilt the balance of equities in its favor. Quoting Castle Rock, the court further observed that “[i]n a case [of transformative secondary use], a copyright holder cannot prevent others from entering fairuse markets merely ‘by developing or licensing a market for parody, news reporting, educational or other transforma- tive uses of its own creative work.’ ” Id. at 615–16 (quoting Castle Rock Entm’t, Inc. v. Carol Publ’g Grp., Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998)). Licensing behavior should not be determinative without more. Before giving effect to current licens- ing practices, we should consider whether the market emerged as a result of ex- cessive risk aversion causing the defendants to request a license with respect to a use that is otherwise fair. On this point, see Wendy J. Gordon, The ‘Why’ of Mar- kets: FairUse and Circularity, 116 Y ALE L.J. P OCKET P ART 358 (2007) (refining
Fairuse is a powerful tool and an important one when faced with shrinking permissive uses. The restrictions that permission rights have placed on the field have had drastic consequences, and discourages those in the field from developing new digital tools and from creating expansive, in-depth research that would rely heavily on images, due to prohibitive cost of permissions and printing, and the likelihood that an essential image would be denied use, rendering the whole work void. (Ballon, 2006) The effective deployment of fairuse strengthens the ability to use works that constructively increase our domain of knowledge, and lead to a stronger and greater commons of discussion and exchange where we people are able to freely draw from the world around them without fear of reprisal.
The future of academic law libraries includes electronics reserves whether they are on a library page or a class homepage. The convenience for students and professors alike are too great to ignore. Yet, with these advantages has come the cusp of a problem that has been delayed for many years. Libraries have not had to pay permission fees to which copyright holders are legally entitled. This was permitted by the copyright holders because the payment and permission system was cumbersome for both the library and the copyright holder. Consequently, the value of the permission fees have traditionally been built into the price of the materials. With the advent of computer technology, it is easier to pay, monitor, and collect the permission fees. More importantly, the potential problems associated with digital text on the Internet has made this issue important to publishers and authors. Libraries are going to have to pay permission fees in the future, for both their print and electronic reserve collections except where clearly excused by fairuse.
Courts could accomplish this by recognizing that a use that fits the definition of a “work of visual art,” as defined in the Copyright Act, 121 is highly likely to be a fairuse. The court would evaluate transformativeness, but also should look at harm to the market. In this regard, it is hard to imagine a work of visual art harming the market for more commercialized works because “works of visual art” can exist only in two hundred or fewer copies, signed and consecutively numbered. The market for such works is relatively small, and it consists of purchasers who are generally sophisticated and knowledgeable about what they are purchasing. Buyers in this market are familiar with the practice of selling copies of works; they are called “reproductions.” There are generally at least two differences between a reproduction and a work of appropriation art: First, appropriation art itself is attributed to an artist, different from the artist who created the original work, whereas reproductions are uncredited. Second, the intention of the appropriation artist is different from that of the creator of the original work, while reproductions seek to simulate the presence of the original work. Attribution is enough to take care of most of the potential problems that copying might create. For example, Sherri
While both the Seventh and Ninth Circuits have found that categorizers are entitled to fairuse protection, the Third Circuit’s decision in Video Pipeline has created a circuit split as to the legitimacy of these categorizers. The inconsistencies inherent in the Seventh, Ninth, and Third Circuits’ applications of the fourth factor analysis have made future litigation unpredictable. Such unpredictability creates a potential chilling effect on the development of online catalogues and indexers, particularly in a climate of rapid technological innovation. A model application of the fourth factor analysis to these cases should avoid the circularity of the Sony dissent, which finds that every unauthorized use immediately harms the potential licensing market and renders the fourth factor an automatic plus for the copyright holder. Particularly, given the nature of online categorizers and the advertising markets made available through in-line linking, 163 clear limits must be placed on copyright
Work on the Code of Best Practices in FairUse for Academic and Research Libraries began with a study by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL), in cooperation with the Center for Social Media and the Washington College of Law Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, exploring how and to what extent librarians at academic research libraries relied on fairuse in making judgments about copyright questions. Researchers interviewed sixty-five librarians at academic research libraries, addressing questions related to “support for teaching and learning, support for scholarship, preservation, exhibition and public outreach, and serving disabled communities” (Adler et al., 2010, p. 1). Responses suggested that many felt unable to fully exercise their or their patrons’ rights under fairuse, due to a lack of understanding of the law and its implications, and they felt this hindered their ability to fulfill their mission (Adler et al., 2010).
Some of these other professional communities have also set forth their understandings in consensus documents that may be useful to poets, teachers, scholars, and others involved with creative practices. Although specific groups create such codes, no one needs to be a member of any professional group to benefit from their interpretations. What follows is a code of best practices devised specifically by and for the poetry community. It is meant to enhance the ability of poets, teachers, scholars, and others to rely on fairuse by serving as documentation of commonly held understandings about best practices in fairuse drawn from the experience of the poetry community itself and supported by legal analysis. The code is meant as both an illustration of and a guide to which uses of copyrighted materials, as described below, are considered reasonable and appropriate within the poetry community.
Consider the first factor: purpose and character of the use. Content ID can easily determine commerciality by determining if the videos are monetized. Further, when considering transformative changes, YouTube should enable content creators preemptively to assert a fairuse claim. By requiring additional information of the nuances of individual videos, such as if an LP video is done for review or commentary purposes, YouTube could make an initial preliminary determination of transformative use. In the event of a dispute, this would also allow copyright holders the chance to consider the potentiality of a fairuse of their work.
Reproducing and using copyrighted content is regarded as fairuse if it is used for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research." Additionally, work cannot be used in its whole form; only limited portions and restricted numbers of copies or uses can be made. While these uses and conditions are defined, it demonstrates the unique understanding the original creators of the Constitution had of the need to disseminate information, as well as the value of leveraging knowledge for its use in science, technology, and promoting the good of society. At the same time, the effect of not defining fairuse leaves it open to dispute and allows for the rule to be applied on a case-by-case basis. While this enables greater subjectivity, it opens the field to litigation. All infringement must be determined subject to a court ruling in legal action. But this should not be an impetus to ignore IP laws; protected material must be used in compliance with the law.
Artists, scholars, teachers, museum professionals, and others represented in the College Art Association membership are significant producers of copyrighted works and they value their own rights. CAA recognized the value of promoting greater certainty among its members about the appropriate exercise of fairuse. The risk posed by widespread uncertainty on this point was underscored by the common default expectation that users of copyrighted material should routinely seek permission to eliminate potential legal liability for unauthorized uses. CAA members were aware that such a culture of permissions could limit the work of the visual arts community and, as a result, deprive the public, especially in a digital era. CAA therefore engaged Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, professors at American University and leading experts in copyright and fairuse, to assess the current state of the community’s practices with respect to the use of third-party copyrighted materials. In 2014, thanks to generous preliminary funding from the Samuel H. Kress Foundation and a major grant from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, CAA asked Aufderheide and Jaszi to prepare “Copyright, Permissions, and FairUse among Visual Artists and the Academic and Museum Visual Arts Communities: An Issues Report.”
Then there are the social networks (built and maintained via post) by way of which Michael Field made contact with Bernard Berenson, Robert Browning, Mary Costelloe, John M. Gray, Walter Pater, John Ruskin, Charles Ricketts, and Charles Shannon, to name but a few. Despite the traditional image of Bradley and Cooper as isolated lyric poets, they were networked. The community they created was formed by constellations of poets and artists, which enabled them to produce intermedial aesthetics of the kinds exhibited in Sight and Song. Berenson’s early input, in par- ticular, was instrumental to the production of Sight and Song. Procuring photographic reproductions, checking details of paintings, and helping to organize travel itineraries, it is tempting to see Berenson (playfully dubbed ‘Doctrine’ by Bradley and Cooper) as a kind of Google or Siri avant la let- tre, as indispensable to their book project as search algorithms have become to writers and researchers today. And, in an age when search engines and wikis have fuelled anxieties over plagiarism, appropriation, misattribution, and fair usage, it is instructive to note that though Berenson became a major figure in art attribution, particularly of Renaissance art and the Old Masters, his attributions, due to conflict of interest — he took a very high percentage of the dealings — are to this day still controversial. That his theories of art were ‘his’ was and is also in question. In the late 1890s, becoming aware that Berenson was plucking ideas from Nietzsche, Edith Cooper would say of him: ‘I knew B. to be ungenerous, I never knew he
Fair Trade is the answer. In addition, it seeks the production of organic agricultural goods or, in this case, the care of the land as the central axis in agricultural activity. This process of alternative integration draws on experiences at the global level, such as Germany, Spain, France in the European Union, as well as the United States, Brazil, Argentina and Mexico. In the latter the experiences of Fair Trade are presented, in the great majority, in the southern region of the country, mainly in Oaxaca, Chiapas, Veracruz, among others. The products that excel, based on Fair Trade include the following: coffee and sugar, among others (Palafox 2014). In the Northern Region, there is no culture and experiences about fair trade, because of its productive vocation, since its private export agriculture that is developed in the states of Sonora, Sinaloa, Chihuahua and Baja California. However, both private and social producers have been identified in Sonora.
There are two strands of the literature which are related to our paper. First, several recent papers incorporate the aspects of fairness into the standard principal-agent models. 3 However, in these papers equity concern and other-regarding preferences are directly introduced into the payoﬀ functions of agents in some speciﬁc ways: for example, the payoﬀ function of an agent is assumed to depend on relative incomes between him and his colleagues. Our approach is diﬀerent from these papers because we do not impose direct speciﬁcations of fairness concern on the payoﬀ functions of agents but rather we use an axiomatic approach by using (NE) as a natural axiom. Thus our model can avoid the problem regarding what speciﬁcation of the payoﬀ function is the most plausible to describe the preference over equity and fairness. Second, some papers show the optimality of simple contracts in the moral hazard environments. Holmstr¨ om and Milgrom (1987) show that the optimal reward to agent becomes linear with respect to the eventual outcomes in the dynamic model in which agent controls the drift rate of the stochastic process of outputs (see also Hellwig and Schmidt (2002) for further elaboration of the model). Our paper is diﬀerent from theirs because we focus on the standard static moral hazard environ- ment only except for incorporating the concept of no-envyness as an equity concern. Holmstr¨ om and Milgrom (1994) also show that the optimal contract to agent be- comes ﬁxed wage in the multi-task context in which agent performs multiple tasks at a time. Although our model also shows the optimality of the ﬁxed wage as in theirs, our approach is diﬀerent from theirs again because we investigate the tension between incentive eﬃciency and no-envyness, which results in the lower-powered incentive schemes.