Slashdot Mirror
Righthaven To Explain Why Reposting Isn't Fair Use
Ponca City, We love you writes "TechDirt reports that a judge has asked Righthaven to explain why a non-profit organization reposting an entire article isn't fair use. The case involves the Center for Intercultural Organizing of Portland, Oregon, which was sued by Righthaven in August after an entire 33-paragraph Review-Journal story about Las Vegas immigrants was posted on the center's website, crediting the Review-Journal. The nonprofit says it was founded by Portland-area immigrants and refugees to combat widespread anti-Muslim sentiment after 9/11 and it works to strengthen immigrant and refugee communities through education, civic engagement, organizing and mobilization and does not charge subscription fees or derive any income from its website. The interesting thing is that the defendant in this case didn't even raise the fair use issue. It was the judge who brought it up, suggesting that the Nevada judges are being inundated with hundreds of Righthaven cases, and that Righthaven has already lost once in a case that was found to be fair use so judges may want to set a precedent to clear their dockets."
But you can do that. You're not reprinting their work, you're transforming it.
You can quote up to 10% of an article to make a point. More than that, and you've crossed the line into copyright infringement. Furthermore, if you are refuting Al Gore or Sarah Palin, chances are you're going to be refuting something they said, which is a matter of public record. So if you repost what the public figure said rather than repost huge chunks of an article written about what they said, you're pretty much in the clear. If you are going off of some book they wrote rather than something they said, then you should have no problem citing the book (paraphrasing as necessary) without directly copying any text from the book.
While there is a lot about copyright law that really torques my 'nards, I really don't see this as a problem. The law gives us enough wriggle room to cite for refutation (or agreement for that matter) as needed.
You can't quote to refute a work.
Uhh... hell yes you can. That falls firmly under the journalism and scholarship fair use exemptions.
Where the fuck did you get this crazy idea?