Arguing the Case for Fair-Use by Example?
bobej1977 asks: "Happened to be perusing my local newspaper website and came across a link to one of those corny news websites, a la Dave Barry. Included were a couple of funny Fair-Use related stories. This got me thinking about how it's often easier to explain the idea of fair-use in terms of the absurdities that occur when people stop using their common sense. Anybody else have any interesting links/stories?" Read on for examples of what bobej means.
bobej1977's article examples:
"In December, Australia's TV Channel 7 reported that many schools across the country, at the behest of the Australasian Performing Rights Association, were discouraging parents from making keepsake movies of their kids' appearances in Christmas musicals, because recording the holiday songs might violate copyright law. [Seven Network Ltd. (Australia), 12-22-03]"and
"In February 2004, according to a New York Times report, cuts from 'White Album' by the band Sonic Youth were being listed for downloading on Apple's iTunes online store, and included was 'Silence,' a 63-second cut consisting of no sound at all, for which fans were nonetheless expected to pay the regular iTunes price of 99 cents. (In a subsequent clarification, a Sonic Youth spokesman said 'Silence' would only be sold to purchasers who bought all of the album's cuts.) [New York Times, 2-9-04, 2-16-04]"Are these decent examples of the absurd, that make a fair to strong case for fair-use? What examples might you have?
So, you like to sing at camp?
-- MarkusQ
there's an art show out there called "Illegal Art" that's chock full of art works that "test the limits" so-to-speak. An example would be that drawing of various Disney characters in curious positions. The html file of DeCSS source code laid out like the DVD logo is also part of the tour. I dont have time to dig it up now, but they have a website and there are occasional news articles in local papers when the show tours that locality.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
The CORRECT quote is from Justice Potter Stewart (Supreme Court, Jacobellis v. Ohio):
I think it's pathetic that a melody written in 1893 is still covered by copyright... barring additional changes in law, the song's now protected at least 2030!
The actual details behind Happy Birthday are kind of interesting... a good synopsis is available from the reference librarian's best friend, Snopes.
-- When I grow up I'd like to be a systems defenestrator.
If your kid has a birthday party and you hire a clown to come in and he sings Happy Birthday, the law was broken.
It's not illegal to sing "Happy Birthday," it's illegal to sing it publicly and not pay the requisite fee to ASCAP or whichever organization handles the collecting of fees and distribution of royalties to composers.