Talk:Fair use

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured article candidateFair 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.
Article milestones
November 2, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted


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

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)Reply[reply]

It's not too technical and never should have been added in the first place. --Trovatore (talk) 06:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
I've just made an attempt at improving the lead. I've also made a series of edits over the last few days that I hope have made the article more understandable to non-experts. I'd be interested to hear what others, particularly non-experts, think of the article as it is now. PacificWonderland (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that the lede is poorly done. Three sentences in, the article cites case law, which reinforces the belief that the article is too technical. Whoever wrote this article was apparently ignorant of the fact that Wikipedia articles are intended for a general audience of laypeople. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a textbook on the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I too would like to see this section reframed to be more encyclopedic. As a start, though, I'm going to attempt to add sources supporting the assertion that these items are misunderstandings and to clean up the style of the writing. There is an appendix in Reclaiming Fair Use by Aufderheide and Jaszi called "Myths and Realities About Fair Use." I'll start with that (in fact I already have).PacificWonderland (talk) 04:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to try moving some parts of the "Misunderstandings" section into relevant places in the rest of the article, which I believe will help address the issues listed above. PacificWonderland (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just finished moving the content from the "Misunderstandings" section into the rest of the article, and I've deleted the section. I hope this is consistent with the various desires expressed above. PacificWonderland (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

  • 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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Fair use. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the first edit, what's in the article now works (looks like it's been changed since Cyberbot II's edit). For the second edit, the archive link looks fine, but the circular seems not to appear in the article any longer. Setting "checked" to "true."PacificWonderland (talk) 17:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair Use is not a term exclusive to the US[edit]

I was shocked to see that the opening sentence to this article claims fair use as a US concept only. We have fair use in the UK (the UK copyright service has a page headed 'fair use' I think the page should change to fairly cover fair use country by country, or the title should be changed to 'fair use in the US'. Lindosland (talk) 10:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use comic book.[edit]

This comic book was designed by legal experts, and has interesting commentary on fair use/public domain: Huggums537 (talk) 00:14, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair Use in Spoiling Reviews[edit]

Are reviews that spoil everything considered fair use since it is a substitute, meaning you do not need to buy the product, just read or see this then you understand, I read movie reviews and Wikipedia to avoid paying for the movie, music and other materials since it spoils it and therefore i save a few bucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetechwizard21 (talkcontribs) 14:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source and word of the USA Fair Use[edit]

The United States has one or more Websites that talk about fair use, and give a bulleted or numbered list of things that it should include. As that is considered "public domain", or property of it citizens, and since that is about as close to official as you can get – other than Supreme Court rulings – how about simply copy-pasting that? Misty MH (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those sites either tend to quote verbatim from the relevant statute, Section 107, or they provide oversimplified explanations. Furthermore, their style is often inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Even if they are worthy of copying and pasting into a Wikimedia Foundation project, the better destination for wholesale verbatim copying would be Wikiquote.
For high-quality, nuanced and concise summaries in plain English of most American legal doctrines, it is normally necessary to resort to private legal treatises like Nimmer on Copyright which are protected under copyright law. Unfortunately, the best writers rarely work for free. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Transformative-use defense" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Transformative-use defense. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 5#Transformative-use defense until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. KamranBhatti4013 (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a fair use form to make asking for permission easier rather than dealing with the headaches of DMCA and court battles to determine if something qualifies under fair use?[edit]

If people ask for permission to review something, it should be standardized that yes I got permission for fair use and be able to post that document in the video so the holder cannot take down the video say on you-tube. A formal process of filling out fair use that way if anyone asks then you can explain yourself in further detail. It is not enough to say its under fair use because that claim is ambiguous. Slinkyw (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you talking about asking Wikipedia for permission, or asking the copyright owner for permission? Copyright infringement is a civil tort, so the question is sort of like asking whether you can lightly stab someone in order to demonstrate how you want to stab them, to determine if it is a permissible stabbing. BD2412 T 18:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"permission for fair use" is an oxymoron, anyway. By definition, fair use is a type of use that is not infringing despite not having obtained permission to use. TJRC (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2022[edit] (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02 talkcontribs 00:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]