Talk:Fair use

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Fair use is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
November 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted
WikiProject Law (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

See also: Wikipedia:Fair use for discussions of what is or is not fair use on Wikipedia.

Rename to 'Fair Use Under American Copyright Law[edit]

this article does not present an international viewpoint

Is the term "fair use" used with a similar meaning outside the United States? We have another article, fair dealing, that deals with the equivalent concept in Commonwealth countries. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and there's also Limitations and exceptions to copyright. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Well stated. The anonymous user who said this article does not present an international viewpoint is not too bright; their statement is a non sequitur. Such a statement is nearly as stupid as saying the article on Italians is not presenting an international viewpoint because it does not have a section about Japanese people. The point is that there are some topics which by definition are localized to a particular area of the world, and fair use is one of them. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL. No further commentary but the helpful links was needed.----Occono (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Gameplay videos[edit]

I was wondering, if one was to make a gameplay video of something, like defeating a boss in Final Fantasy X (just using a game most people know off, it could be any other game for that matter), and put it on the Internet for people to see, would this be considered fair use or a copyright infringement? --Hecko 06:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is potentially a copyright infringement because the imagery comes entirely from the copyrighted game. However, it is possible that you could make a fair use justification. Please consult an attorney.

Al-Qaida images[edit]

Surely a special case :) The photo of "al-Hukaymah" here: was extracted (I don't know by whom) from a propaganda video made by the international criminal organization known as al-Qaeda. It's a safe bet that al-Qaeda will not come forward to sue any of us. But seriously, is there some formal Wiki policy about such cases? Lots of other terrorists' faces are known only from such "enemy" sources. In any event the enemy made these images for free distribution, although not always public distribution, exactly. LDH 12:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably a question for Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use..., rather than the talk page of the encyclopedia article about fair use. - Jmabel | Talk 17:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Some "DICK HEAD LOSER" vandalism ?[edit]

Today (march 20 2007) I've noticed the text "DICK HEAD LOSER" in big font in the first section of the article "Fair use under United States law" between "The fact that a work is unpublished shall..." and "The four factors of analysis for fair use set forth above...". I've tried to edit the section, but the text appears nowhere in the source. I suspect the text has been added by other means. What can we do about that ? Fabricebaro 16:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed that a few minutes ago.[1] It doesn't appear on the article anymore for me, so it's probably your cache, which you can bypass with Ctrl+F5. It should be gone after you do that. —M_C_Y_1008 (talk/contribs) 16:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Scanned pages from books to support citations[edit]

Sorry if this is answered somewhere, but I can't find a clear Wiki policy regarding the use of scanned pages of books. For example, this sample page was scanned from a Sanskrit text that is copyrighted. [2] The page image was referenced in connection with a discussion of what the text says on an article talk page: Talk:Ashvamedha#Griffith_reprint_.28again....29 Is it ok to scan pages in this way? Can they be used in articles to support references? Buddhipriya 04:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You probably meant to ask this at Wikipedia talk:Fair use, not here. This is the talk page of the article Fair use, not a place to discuss Wikipedia policies.
I am not a lawyer, but I would guess that scanning a single page of a copyrighted book to show it to another person as part of a scholarly discussion is probably fair use. I would probably have emailed it to the relevant individual rather than posting it to the web, but photocopying it is no different from quoting at length. But, again, you might bring this to Wikipedia talk:Fair use to get the comments of the people who tend to focus on this. - Jmabel | Talk 18:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply! I will post the question where you suggest. The image link would be on a talk page for an article, and so would potentially be seen by many people. This came up in a real talk page discussion which is why I am asking. Buddhipriya 18:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use in performance[edit]

Does anyone know anything about fair use in performance (showing movies, singing happy birthday, etc)?--Jake13jake 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

A little. The line isn't sharp, but it's mostly a matter of public vs. private. That is, it's certainly fair use to sing the copyrighted version of "Happy Birthday" to your friend at home; it's certainly not fair use to sing it from the stage of a cabaret; it's an interesting question (I don't know if it's ever hit a court) whether it is OK for an employee of a busy restaurant to sing it to a customer. My guess would be that, technically, it's not, it's merely tolerated. - Jmabel | Talk 18:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Tangentially related, the CS Monitor reported on licensing fees and tensions around playing cover songs at coffee shop open mic nights. --Driscoll (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The 300 word rule?[edit]

The 300 word rule is listed under common misunderstandings, but the text seems to support the idea that 300 words is an acceptable amount of quoting, so long as it is properly sourced, to use without violating copyrights. Should this be restructured so that either the reason that it is listed under common misunderstandings is made clear or possibly moved to a new section that might be labeled 'correct understands'? Mathchem271828 21:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

It really depends on the work in question. Quoting 300 words of a 200,000-word book is probably OK, unless it's a particularly substantial paragraph (as detailed in the article), but quoting 300 words of a 300-word poem is much more likely to be an infringement. Regardless, please consult an attorney and/or the rightful copyright owner. (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Balzac infringement?[edit]

"On the other hand, one might well question whether Roland Barthes' S/Z clearly supersedes Honoré de Balzac's short story "Sarrasine" as a market replacement, since it reproduces the entirety of the latter, though only in short fragments followed by much critical explication by Barthes."

Seems to be not WP:NPOV at all. Balzac's works have not had copyright protection in centuries. Delete sentence? Gekritzl 01:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been quite long enough since this was brought up, so I went ahead and deleted it. Aside from the fact that Sarrasine is not currently copyrighted, it's original research unless somebody can produce a source where a commentator of note describes S/Z as such. That's aside from the weasel words that lead it all off. --ChandlerH 19:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Book covers in Wikipedia articles on the Book and its Author[edit]

May we use copyrighted images of Book covers in Wiki articles about the Book or its Author? Yours truly, --Ludvikus 03:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a question for Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use... --Lquilter 21:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


"...fair use analyses consider certain aspects of the work to be relevant..."

What's this supposed to mean? Analysis, analyzes, etc? (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's correct as written. "Analyses" is the plural of "analysis". -- Coneslayer 20:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How Does Fair Use Apply to Music and Perfomances?[edit]

If I were a restaurant owner with a liquor license, would it be considered fair to play music in the background? Assume the music is not being changed or reproduced in any way. Now, if I were that same restaurant owner and I had belly-dancers in on Friday nights, are they allowed to play whatever music they like to perform to? Assume that I am 1) not paying them and 2) not charging my customers extra for the show.

The issue has come up about performing to copyright material, and I’m assuming that most musical artists copyright their songs. The question seems to be about making a profit from the performance; it that is the issue, what sort of permission would needed to be able to perform to an artists music?

Rebeccared50 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please consult a legal, certified attorney.

Hi Rebecca. I recently read an article about performance licensing that might be helpful. --Driscoll (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Piracy link[edit]

used to link to Piracy (disambiguation) I changed it to Copyright infringement. Seems much more relevant, if anyone disagrees can change it back I guess. (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Good catch! I think linking copyright infringement was a great idea. EMachine03 (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Absent but important[edit]

In the #Practical effect of fair use defense section and reflectivr of the article as a whole is one very key and prevalent factoid with books: Many, if not virtually all books on the market include near the copyright the usual prohibition against reproduction though they do, however establish limited permissible Fair Use exceptions to this rule: They generally allow for small excerpts to be reproduced for the purpose of critical review and with the author's written consent they may also reproduce it in various media for some innocuous and constructive purpose. I can't understand why this would be absent from the article when it's entirely relevant to it, though otherwise it's an overall great article. Also, is it relevant to mention Public Domain guidelines, such as those that are incorporated into Wikipedia's image and general Fair Use policy. Yes the Wikipedia article discusses them, but that's mainly regarding how it relates to Wikipedia versus the policy as a whole.


Alan (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

A pertinent example of Fair Use violation[edit]

I think a good example of what constitutes fair use and what doesn't is this: A few years back, someone created their own humorous spinoff of Monopoly called (try not to laugh) Ghettopoly. The properties and items centered around drugs, prostitution, etc. When the guy who created the game marketed it, he was sued by Parker Bros. for copyright infringement. It should be noted that Parker Bros. does have a "Create your own 'Opoly'". My American history teacher explained the law very straighforwardly: To create the game itself is not Copyright Infringement. It's perfectly ok for home/personal use. However, as soon as you sell that game on the open market, that becomes Copyright Infringement and no longer constitutes as fair use. I think that falls inline with what the article has been saying and is thus quite relevant. Doesn't have to be added to the article if it's not in anyone's best interest, but it would be nice if such an example in one way or another made it in there. {May the author be aware that it is not legal for home/personal use.

-Alan (talk) 14:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel your history professor is wrong. In the example, Ghettopoly is obviously a parody, not a satire. It uses portions of Monopoly's scheema, not the entire game (not identical pieces, squares, etc). Parker Bros can hardly argue that each sale of Ghettopoly is a lost sale of Monopoly. That suggests it might be fair use regardless of the profit motive, which would make it a poor classroom example of a "straightforward" case. Parker Bros might have been on a more solid legal footing arguing from a trademark argument rather than copyright. BogWhomper (talk) 05:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would caution against the immediate conclusion that this is a parody and not satire. While the distinction is difficult to make, it is entirely possible that the derivative game may be more appropriately termed "satire," especially if the work "has no critical bearing on the substance or style" of the original content (ABA roundtable on the Satire/ Parody distinction in fair use law: Thus, if "Ghettopoly" is taking a critical stance against, for example, some large social construct and merely using the form of "Monopoly (c)" to make this criticism, the new game may fall under the purview of "satire" in this sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgyer (talkcontribs) 21:21, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Fair use in Israel not noteworthy[edit]

Why is special mention in the article made for the fair-use policy in Israel? Fair-use law in every nation is different, what is so noteworthy about Israel's?

I suggest it be removed from the article, or moved to another "fair use by nation" type article.

Wageslave (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe the "special mention" is because someone who knew about fair use in Israel decided to add to this article. It is not so much that Israel's fair use policy is especially notable; it is more likely that descriptions of fair use policy in other countries just hasn't been added yet. I don't know why this article on the subject of "fair use" needs to restrict itself to be US-only.
There is no reason to take this information to its own article yet. A section related to fair use by nation (other than the US) can be worked on in this article until it grows too large and must be split. In summary, I believe that removal of this content will be detrimental to Wikipedia on the whole, and thus I cannot support. -FrankTobia (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I want to point out that the reason that this article has been exclusively about the United States is that the concept, under the name fair use, existed only in U.S. law. Other articles, including Fair dealing and Limitations and exceptions to copyright dealt with the equivalent concept in other countries' legal systems. The new Israeli law is modeled on the U.S. law, and uses the term "fair use". For that reason, Israel may be the first non-U.S. country whose laws belong in this article. -- Coneslayer (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense, yes. Thanks FrankTobia & coneslayer. Wageslave (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Four Thousand, Five Hundred Billion dollars[edit]

While reading the Wikipedia article at the Fair_use node, at the time of authoring this text, the second sentence reads (as copied for illustration, sans HTML):

On September 12, 2007, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), [20] a group representing companies including Google Inc., Microsoft Inc., [21] Oracle Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Yahoo[22] and other high tech companies, released a study that found that Fair Use exceptions to US copyright laws were responsible for more than $4,500 Billion dollars in annual revenue for the United States economy representing one-sixth of the total U.S. GDP.

I am left to wonder what figure the author means to express; whether there is a contextual connotation of which I am unaware, which leads to my misunderstanding. I look forward to returning to the article in the future, that I might resolve to better understand this section.

Jsabarese (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

$4,500 Billion is an incorrect statement meaning $4.5 Trillion. That amount itself doesn't make sense because it exceeds the combined global GDP. I guess the author either miss-quoted on accident, made a typo, or his source was incorrect due to the previous reasons. Since he said U.S. GDP, he (or the source) probably meant $45 Billion. I hope this helps. (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


From the intro: "The term 'fair use' is unique to the United States, and recently to Israel and the UK as well ..."

How can the term be unique to the United States if it's also used in the United Kingdom and Israel? Somebody may wish to reword that to make some sort of sense. (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Creation of (Not-for-sale) toys and sundries based on copyrighted works [?][edit]

The article makes no clear mention of fair use and how it relates to unlicensed memorabilia made only for personal --and not commercial-- consumption.

My question stems from a childhood experience in which my friend's mother used her sewing tools to create some plush toys based on the "Battletoads" video game; for us to play with.

Since these toys were never intended to be sold commercially, and no similar products were being marketed; would this fall under "fair use"? ---or does another facet of the law apply? Pine (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use as First Amendment right[edit]

The following two sentences that i've removed from the lead secn may be simply the result of flawed logic combined with dismissal of the need to research rather than just guess, -- or an expression of the PoV that fair use is in the spirit of free speech:

It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
United States trademark law also incorporates a "fair use" defense, which also stems from the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution.

The article offers no refs, has not been discussed in the Talk, and despite my formal study of copyright law and personal acquaintance with the statute (especially re fair use) i've never before heard it suggested. (BTW, copyrights and patents are discussed in the Constitution, but not in the Bill of Rights, nor with reference to free speech). The best short reason for disbelieving these statements is the rudiments of statutory intellectual property law:

You can patent a useful invention.
You can trademark (or, now, service mark) the commercial name of a product (or service).
You can copyright your way of expressing an idea.

Only a patent comes close to exclusive ownership of an idea, and in fact

a patent is not that, but rather ownership of the right to use any idea inherent in the invention (and IIRC only to use it to turn a profit), and
requires you to disclose, once the patent becomes effective, the useful ideas constituting the invention, and implicitly allows others to then distribute those ideas.

Nothing in these forms of IP is in conflict with the free-speech clause in the First Amendment, bcz that is about the right to express ideas (with the emphasis on universal participation in decision making in public matters), which is quite different from a right to express ideas in the same tangible embodiment of them that someone else originated.
The Constitution authorizes Congress to effect good commercial policy by granting property rights that allow intellectual work to be rewarded by selling its product, and explicitly recognizes that time limits on those rights are also good commercial policy. There is no reason to suppose that fair use -- which is couched so that it creates exceptions to those property rights where the free flow of information benefits society without proportionate deprivation of the IP-owner's capability to profit -- is anything but more good commercial policy.
If there are refs supporting a free-speech motivation, or citation of a Constitutional necessity on that basis, in the legislative or judicial history of fair use, lets hear about them.
--Jerzyt 06:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair use has been called a First Amendment safeguard in copyright law by the Supreme Court (see Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003)).

Hartboy (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

"Warner Music Group has followed suit, ignoring fair-use and deleting any video with music that they have rights over—no matter how big or small the audio clip is."

Seems a little POVish to me. Can somebody try their hand at a reword? I couldn't think of anything better, so I offer it up to the people who visit (or watchlist) this talk page). blurredpeace 04:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The line is uncited so I've added a {{fact}}. Unless a reliable secondary source can be found saying that Warner has done this, the statement should be deleted. Examples of unsuitable sourcing would be most blogs or trying to use youtube links to show this is happening Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
YouTube has a service called Content ID that automatically removes videos with found content. This sample content is provided by copyright owners and sent to YouTube, then inserted into Content ID software and so on. Many people think the WMG constantly scopes YouTube for content. It is instead the fair-use-un-detecting Content ID service that removes videos. --Gert7 (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

fair use with video clips?[edit]

i'd like to know if we are allowed to use short video clips on wikipedia articles (example: to show the gameplay of a video game, sample of a music video, scene of a movie, etc.), does it qualify as fair use. we can use 30 secondes audio samples (OGG file) on certain articles can we do the same with a video footage (OGG file)? thanks. Cliché Online (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikimedia prefers screenshots. Please provide heavy educational and/or informational text next to these short fair use clips. --Gert7 (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Please consult an attorney on the usage of this copyrighted material.
This edit deleted some good info on film and media fair use. Worth restoring? --Elvey (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

really confused.[edit]

say theres a online game with forums, and one is for roleplaying, somepeople make one that is based off a seris, say star wars for example. they dont use caracters from it, just things like planets and sepices. and the story is original, they just kind of make it up as they go. the company that owns the site has copyright on the website and every thing in it. is this a vilation of fair use or not? this law is really confusing so an example might help the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If they do not use the trademark and do not plagiarize another story, it is legal. But using planet names or specie names from it is a cross between trademark and copyright infringement, because it can lead to false ideas of affiliation with Star Wars and the game. However, personal over-the-net role-playing and reenactment that is not presented as a game can be considered legal, but only within the limits of person-to-person communication - not turning into a service or anything. --Gert7 (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Please consult an attorney for an accurate, and comprehensive examination of this case.


Pikolas inserted a purported "fair use logo" a month ago. I have summarily deleted that from the article as a blatant violation of Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

Wikipedia is NOT a publisher of original thought. If Pikolas wishes to propose that there should be such a logo, he or she is free to do so elsewhere, but NOT on Wikipedia. Wikipedia follows trends, it does not set them. Having studied copyright law at one of the top law schools in the United States, I have a strong grasp of the subject, and I've NEVER seen that crazy-looking logo in the relevant published literature on fair use. I just ran some searches right now and I don't see ANY sign that that logo is in use by any major publication to signify fair use. --Coolcaesar (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was ill-informed. By the description of the image, I believed it really was a fair use logo. Again, sorry for any inconveniences. --Pikolas (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


It would be great to allow the use of "Fair Use" images (like this one) on the Wikipedia pages of countries that have a similar legislation.

For example, in France, we have this law: Droit de courte citation that allows to quote copyrighted content, and that also applies to images in a similar way as "Fair Use".

Therefor I think the US-only restriction for "Fair Use" images should be reconsidered to include countries that allow these same usages. - Supercopter (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

From the top of this page: See also: Wikipedia:Fair use for discussions of what is or is not fair use on Wikipedia. In other words: wrong forum for your idea... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Globalize and restructure[edit]

This article has a section "Fair use under United States law", followed by several other sections like "Fair use as a defense", which do not make it clear, but I believe refer to US situation again. If so, all such sections should be merged to the first section, which perhaps should then be split into fair use (United States) or fair use in the United States, and summarized here. On the other hand, we need to improve the poor "Influence internationally" section, which should likely be retitled to "Fair use by country". This article should generally restructured to discuss the concepts of fair use in general, and by country, instead of messily assuming that "fair use in the USA" = fair use. For my part, I'll try to add a "in Poland" section based on pl wiki article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Strongly disagree---please read some books on international copyright law first. Fair use is primarily a U.S. concept (with a little bit of influence on Israeli law) and therefore the title needs no additional qualifiers under Wikipedia's common name policy. The rest of the world uses fair dealing. --Coolcaesar (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
This source mentions "fair use in China". This, the "Japanese fair use". This, "Russian fair use". This source (in Polish, snippet view only so cannot display page) does confirm that at least some Polish works refer to the Polish concept of pl:dozwolony użytek as the "Polish fair use". I'll note that Fair dealing has no pl wiki equivalent, one source (p.18 snippet: [3]) translates it as "zasada rzetelnego działania" which does not seem to be a widely used term in other workds anyway. There are several hits for "dozwolony użytek" and "fair use", but only one (cited above) for du and "fair dealing", which in any case does not draw an equivalency between fair dealing and du in the Polish law. Moving on, this source mentions to works that discuss the "international fair use" concept. While I am not denying that fair use in the United States is the most important meaning and worldwide use, I do not see that we can support your assertion that fair use exists only in the United States. Rather, fair use worldwide is heavily influenced by the US fair use, and has various local flavors, out of which fair dealing is like one of the more notable variants. But that does not mean that fair use cannot exist outside US and this article should be clear on that; particularly as it is quite clear from looking at the sections I mentioned above that in this article, most if not all that is outside the "Influence internationally" refers to the fair use in the USA - whereas fair use does exist outside US. A problem we encounter is that vast majority of the English-language legal texts care little for (modern) law outside the English-speaking countries, but a cursory if quick glance at some Polish texts does suggest that they discuss the concept of fair use in a wider context, noting the specific features (and likely, international importance) of the US variant. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
I still strongly disagree. It seems to me that those texts are merely attempting to translate local concepts into English by using the closest available term; you're trying to read too much into those sources. But in the English language (and this is the English Wikipedia), fair use connotes a particular concept in U.S. law which has been developed through hundreds of federal court decisions. So the more efficient way to handle this would be to have a separate article about Fair use (international) in addition to the current Fair use article about how that term is used in the country of its birth.--Coolcaesar (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Fairly Useless[edit]

That's pretty much the value of this article for non-legal professionals and students.

The article should start with a direct, to-the-point, plain English description of what "Fair Use" is (today), and then digress later into the mire of complex and overlapping legal notions. And "History" should not be a part of the modern definition of most concepts, the history of a term should come later in the article, rather than slowly, tortuously, revealing the terms more subtle modern applications.

In writing Wikipedia articles, regular people (and readers) come first. The technically obsessed reader should rank a distant second. (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, the article is (largely) an accurate, clear and concise summary of fair use. I see nothing wrong with it. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
To be clearer, the article already begins with a concise definition of the subject. Furthermore, it appears that you don't understand how the law works. Legal rules that evolved as general rules for dealing with a wide variety of complex factual situations, like fair use, are always necessarily complex in ways that seem bizarre and counterintuitive unless one understands how they evolved over time. Life is messy and the law has to reflect that. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the (current) unclear, reverse-order opening--

"Fair use, a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders."

And this is a clear one--

"Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. It is a limitation, and exception, to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work."

This pattern of reverse-order-revelation is repeated throughout the whole article. For example, the history of the term is used to reveal it's more subtle applications, which is the slow-and-plodding way of revealing those details rather than getting right to them. (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I see where you're going. Your true quarrel is with the syntax of individual sentences, as distinguished from the overall structure of the presentation. I agree that the article is mediocre from a stylistic perspective because the editors working on it have employed such clumsy syntax. Unfortunately, I don't practice copyright law myself, so I lack the energy or interest in cleaning this up from scratch. Which is probably why the article is a mess to begin with, because all the copyright experts with the legal knowledge and writing skill to clean up this article are too busy applying both in the service of their paying clients.--Coolcaesar (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Too technical[edit]

I'm putting the {{technical}} template back because of this one sentence. "Once these factors were codified as guidelines in 17 U.S.C. § 107, they were not rendered exclusive." An IP added the template on the 19th, and User:Trovatore removed it on the 22nd. Let there be improvements to the wording, and then let that person remove the tag. This makes useful progress while the tag can be ignored if you want to. (It does not show up on the printed page.) But there was no improvement of the wording during those twelve days. There should usually be either discussion or some significant reworking of the article before removing a tag. Happy editing! — CpiralCpiral 19:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not too technical and never should have been added in the first place. --Trovatore (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
In any case, that tag should basically never be in mainspace, because it's addressed to editors, not readers. I don't agree with it on this article, period, but I've moved it to the talk page as a compromise. --Trovatore (talk) 06:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The lead could really use some improvements on how it presents fair use. Even the first meaning is using a rather complicated way to say that fair use allows use of copyrighted material without the permission of author.Belorn (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the Philippines have fair use?[edit]

Well I checked the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, and under the section linked, it states:

185.1. The fair use of a copyrighted work for criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, research, and similar purposes is not an infringement of copyright. Decompilation, which is understood here to be the reproduction of the code and translation of the forms of the computer program to achieve the inter-operability of an independently created computer program with other programs may also constitute fair use. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is fair use, the factors to be considered shall include:

(a) The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for non-profit educational purposes; (b) The nature of the copyrighted work; (c) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (d) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 185.2. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not by itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

— Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines

Would it be alright to state this in the article? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually a lot of countries have it. I recently added to the external links The Fair Use/Fair Dealing Handbook, which basically just compiles all the statutes that explicitly say "fair use" or "fair dealing". I don't know if we need to have an exhaustive list in the article, but we could make a more general statement to make it less U.S.-centric, and use the handbook as a reference. —mjb (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Fair use essentially means that you are allowed to use a work in certain situations without the permission from the copyright holder. US copyright law has a section entitled fair use as well as other sections which allows you to use works in specific situations, for example 17 U.S.C. 120 (which says that it is permitted to take photos of copyrighted buildings and that the owner of the building may demolish or change the building) or 17 U.S.C. 109 which says that you may sell or exhibit a copyrighted work (such as a book or a painting) which has legally been sold to you. The copyright laws of many (all?) other countries also allow you to use copyrighted works without the permission from the copyright holder, but the word "fair use" is not necessarily used in the law, and the situations in which you may use a copyrighted work may be different, possibly overlapping with "fair use", the right to demolish a building and the right to sell a book which you have legally bought. It is not clear exactly what you mean with "fair use" outside the United States or the Philippines as the US and Philippine copyright laws only use this term for certain uses of copyrighted works but not for other uses. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Common misunderstandings[edit]

The section on Common misunderstandings has WP:RS AND WP:OR problems.

Most significantly, it makes the assumption that these are common misunderstandings. Who says that these are common misunderstandings? We need a source for that. --Nbauman (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

As someone who practices in the field, most of these are in fact common misunderstandings. That sort of thing likely could be cited. But it seems to me that your quarrel, however, is with the very notion of "common misunderstandings", which is a sort of FAQ-style approach that is not exactly encyclopedic -- more of a WP:STYLE issue really. If so, could the section be largely preserved as written with a better prefatory paragraph, that did include citations to copyright FAQ/misunderstanding-type articles? Or is it the whole idea of writing something like this list that's problematic? --Lquilter (talk) 16:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the whole list is problematic, as it's just not encyclopedic. We have to focus on what fair use is and what has been written about it. That's not to say that we can't try to ensure that certain ideas get communicated in ways that head off common misunderstandings. But as it stands, it's basically a "some say" or "many mistakenly think" that fair use means whatever, which violates WP:WEASEL. However I'd be OK with linking to such a FAQ if it's on a noncommercial, somewhat authoritative site (preferably not a law firm). —mjb (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I also think there's a separate problem with one item on that list. "Fair use interpretations are unique and limited" seems, from the description, to be an accurate conception, not a misconception. Not sure how to reword that to make the statement elegantly equal a misconception. "Fair use interpretations are generic and universally applicable"? "Fair use interpretations are universal and transferrable"? Or am I missing what that statement means to say. Joe (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There has been no discussion on this topic for over 18 months now and no substantive discussion since the tag was first applied 21 months ago. While I do not see an endorsement of the current format, I also do not see a clear consensus for how or even whether to rewrite it. The page history in the meantime shows some implicit endorsements. Routine editing can and should continue (and the discussion here should certainly continue) but I am removing the tag on the article in the meantime. Rossami (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use : Canada[edit]

The new copyright law has changed, permits fair use. This part should be updated.Mighty.Yggdrasil (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Canada is still on a fair dealing regime. It's broader and better now, certainly, but it's not the same as fair use. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Redirect Vandalism[edit]

Someone or something has vandalized many of the redirects that should point to this page, including "Fair_use_policy," "Fair_use_doctorine," and "Fair_use_doctrine," and "Fair_Use." The last three were made to point to Dumplings (film), the first to Bandwidth cap. In each of these cases, a bot appears to be the culprit. Is there any way to find other broken redirects and fix them?

Thanks for your help on this.

TI. Gracchus (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I've used the "what links here" function to find all of the broken links pointing to the movie and the article on bandwidth, but there may have been other links similarly disrupted. Is there any way to find them?

TI. Gracchus (talk) 05:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair use and fair dealing are not so easily differentiated[edit]

There seems to be a difference of opinion over the degree to which fair dealing and fair use overlap, and what makes them different. The more common viewpoint seems to be that fair use, the general topic of this article, must be defined as being whatever United States law says, because that's where the term originates. By this reasoning, every other nation's laws can be dismissed as not being "actual" or "full" fair use, even when fair use is the exact term used in those countries, and even when they allow for more flexibility than the rigid standard thought to be at the core of fair dealing.

Yet, as I mentioned above, The Fair Use/Fair Dealing Handbook, a compilation of national statutes which explicitly mention the terms fair use or fair dealing, claims that the definitions of those terms vary quite a bit worldwide, and in some countries have changed (e.g., in Canada by judicial precedent) to the point where it seems to me that the choice of whether to call it fair dealing or fair use is mainly a product of the statutes' historical origin, not so much arising from substantial differences or any international agreement on what the terms mean.

I propose we rework both the fair use and fair dealing articles to reflect this broader perspective, and also to reduce redundancy. I'd like to get some feedback, first, though. What do you think? —mjb (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Historically there's been quite a difference; fair use was a broader doctrine than fair dealing in any country that used either of those two terms. Just in the past 5 years "fair dealing" has evolved in Canada to be broader than it was in the past; and fair use has been adopted in several other countries. To me, I think we need an article on the legal doctrines, country by country. It would be less important then whether we then have one consolidated article on fair use/fair dealing -- probably either approach is defensible. --Lquilter (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Wait, I've tried to interpret the South Korean Copyright Law...[edit]

I want to insert several game posters and movie posters into the Korean Wikipedia that doesn't seem to be in there yet. However, I noticed that there was some copyright law that is allowed in the US, but not in Korea, that decides of the image uploading. Can someone tell me why this seems to not be allowed in the Korean Wikipedia? Here's the Korean copyright law website. --> HanSangYoon (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

We have no jurisdiction over the south Korean Wikipedia, or expertise in Korean copyright law - we are the English Wikipedia. You need to contact somebody at BMK (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use as a Defense and NPOV[edit]

Current text claims that the argument that "fair use is a right" is the result of a confusion. It cites to an article by von Lohmann noting that it is generally understood as a defense, but the article isn't really addressing the question of "right" vs. "defense," and certainly doesn't label everyone on the other side as "simply confused." (That's definitely not what von Lohmann meant, he's the first one who explained to me the argument about Fair Use as a right, the implication being that judges could independently find fair use without any argument in a briefing from the defense.)

EFF's Fair Use FAQ provides a more neutral POV:

5. Is Fair Use a Right or Merely a Defense?

Lawyers disagree about the conceptual nature of fair use. Some lawyers claim that fair use is merely a defense to a claim of copyright infringement. Although fair use is often raised as a defense, many lawyers argue that fair use can also be viewed as having a broader scope than this. If fair use is viewed as a limitation on the exclusive rights of copyright holders, fair use can be seen as a scope of positive freedom available to users of copyrighted material.

Absent any objections, I recommend we change this section to a more NPOV: this is an ongoing dispute, so there's no need to just call names and say one side of the dispute must be confused because one source has been identified in favor of the other side. --Thomas Btalk 21:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)