Understanding "Fair Use" laws (in the US)

[BigFuzzy]

Having done a decent amount of research lately on the "Fair Use" laws for a potential project in the future I think I've boiled it down to a digestably summary, particularly after reading the Supreme Courts ruling in Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music and I want to see if anyone feels I should interpret it (or any other law) differently based on what they know.

So... I now believe one can use an image on a blog without permission if it's done as a parody, that's to say using a work in order to poke fun at or comment on the work itself. And if the "for profit" issue comes up, the ruling (and hence legal precedence) notes that when the parody itself is the product rather than the referenced work, it's ok to make money off said parody. This is how I believe sites like failblog get away with posting work clearly not theirs.

So, taking it further (within US law) I can use other people's images on a blog to critique and comment on it's qualities and elements, even if my website is making money off of my words which is the actual 'product' as opposed to making money off the referenced imagery.

Any of you lawyers or pseudo-lawyers feel I'm off track here?

And please, try to point me to references (like I did in the above case) instead of just opining, because though I value your opinion, I'm not sure I'd be able to check it's veracity to see if I am indeed way off track.

Thanks!

[BuddhaPi]

No I'm not an attorney, but have been forced into learning up on copyright issues, Thans to Getty Images, but thats a completely different and long story..


The distinction between fair use and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined.
Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself. It does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.

The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation.... A good time to speak with with an IP attorney as the law is not so clear ( at least here in the states)

Google's use of online images in its "Image Search" falls under "fair use" technically. That is because Google doesn't serve up the images to you directly; it simply links to the location of the actual images. There are those who challenge this thinking, because Google must temporarily store or "cache" the images on its systems at least temporarily in order to provide you with such a search function that includes those little thumbnail pictures.

Bottom line is this is a very slippery slope, I would most certainly speak with and IP attorney before proceeding

[Jim Poor]

You've summed it up fairly well in terms of parody. That's how Weird Al gets away with what he does so well.

Basically if the image itself is the subject of discussion (praise, critique, etc) then you're pretty much free and clear to use it. One pitfall could be if you bash an image and the photographer takes offense or feels that it could damage his/her business.

There was a recent case when the discussion of a photo (horses in Iceland) turned from "Do you think it's a composite?" to "I know it's a composite and there is a lot of other manipulation done to it. The photographer is a liar!" The first part of the conversation was Okay, the second part could have (and might yet) land someone in hot water.

The best reference I have is Photo Attorney along with a few conversations with Carolyn Wright (owner of Photoattorney.com).

[sk66]

I think you are correct, not so sure about the "for profit" aspect but I think if the images themselves have nothing to do with the making profit other than site substance you are probably also "technically correct".
But I would have to caution you. Being "technically correct" doesn't mean you are in the clear...it's ALWAYS a case by case determination and subject to opinion, and not yours. Even if you do win, you have to fight to win, and often it's not who's right that wins but rather the individual with the bigger wallet.

Putting up others images with/without permission and posting negative critiques could certainly invite hostility.....

[BigFuzzy]

Originally Posted by BuddhaPi

: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; ”

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation...

First parts are what I'm interested in, but yeah, I just wanted to see what I understand to be the laws/rules before I go see a lawyer. Luckily I work in a building full of laywers, unfortunately they're all humanitarian, international, or criminal lawyers.

Originally Posted by Jim Poor

One pitfall could be if you bash an image and the photographer takes offense or feels that it could damage his/her business.

Yeah, that's one of the elements I'd keep in mind.. IF that were something I were to do

Originally Posted by sk66

Putting up others images with/without permission and posting negative critiques could certainly invite hostility.....

Agreed. Never said I'd do that... oops, did I? Really?

Thanks guys.. I think I'm headed in the right direction.. but yeah, were I to ever consider something like this, I'd have to cover my arse pretty heavily.