Aad  HH $ @dHHHHff@d Footnote TableFootnote**.\t.\t/ - :;,.!?:]- _{TOCHeadingHeading2   EquationVariables+-=/-.<$lastpagenum><$monthname> <$daynum>, <$year>"<$monthnum>/<$daynum>/<$shortyear>;<$monthname> <$daynum>, <$year> <$hour>:<$minute00> <$ampm>"<$monthnum>/<$daynum>/<$shortyear><$monthname> <$daynum>, <$year>"<$monthnum>/<$daynum>/<$shortyear>S <$fullfilename>x <$filename> <$paratext[Title]>  <$paratext[Heading1]>  <$curpagenum>H <$marker1>@ <$marker2> (Continued)+ (Sheet <$tblsheetnum> of <$tblsheetcount>)Heading & Page <$paratext> on page<$pagenum>noPagepage<$pagenum>See Heading & Page%See <$paratext> on page<$pagenum>. Table & Page7Table<$paranumonly>, <$paratext>, on page<$pagenum> Table All7Table<$paranumonly>, <$paratext>, on page<$pagenum>Table Number & Page'Table<$paranumonly> on page<$pagenum>l l -l Aal me>$dl thn>/l ;Aol $hoA:ek1(de%(ef#n(fg&$(gh'(hi#>(jj+e(il$om*mn*So*ip* q* r*Ts*t*iu* v*w*rx*ay* z*{*b|*$}*~* *x*a *a *n *e *e * *u* *$*<* ***u*t*<**&*$* *#**'**  d(k I d(l Id H$ (m K oH$ (dUU`l# nHw (n K #Hw *UUheSPage # HH(o K HH UU`f| H$ (p K H$ UU`g *Hw (q K Hw  UUhh*Page 4 uHH(r K *HH*UU`i|u d(s I *H3R `@(t K #H3R `@H RH R~FootnoteHq3@ `@(u K Hq3@ `@HzHz~ Single LineH'(v J  Footnote o   L   `l#   H3D `@(x M H3D `@HH~ Double LineheH (y J  Double Line N U$ N H (| J  Single Line N 4HZ(~ J  TableFootnoteEGVR `@( J EGVR `@EPwEPw~ TableFootnotetd( I HH( K HH `j#MMLAW Discussion Question ` o 2`!FAIR USE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL G m_ For a definition of "fair use" see the file called COPY LAW (to access this file send mail to he\@mBLISTSERV@vm.its.rpi.edu and send the message GET COPY LAW MMLAW). q`n Question:  o]You are developing a multimedia program on American politics. You decide to create a parody oYon the lyrics to the song "The Impossible Dream." Your parody lyrics include occasional o]refrains from the original song. Which of the following most accurately describes the legal @o9issues involved in the distribution of these new lyrics?  p[A) The parody is a copyright infringement because you have ruined the market for original @pwork. `q^B) You have the legal right to create a parody that uses copyrighted text from the original. `rWC) You have created a copyright infringement because the parody is a derivative work. m.`sit C`tth DISCUSSION COX`uth]The answer is B, as long as your use of the original material meets guidelines for fair use. Cm vZSection 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 states that the fair use of copyrighted material vti\includes the reproduction of such material "for purposes such as criticism" (which includes si@vpa parodies). ncl`w;The four statutory factors used to determine fair use are: the xcu]1) Purpose of the work If the primary goal of the parody is not commercial gain, the use of n@xJcopyrighted material in the parody would probably be considered fair use.  yr \2) Nature of the work If the parody uses copyrighted material that is primarily factual in cry uccontent, the use of the material would probably be considered fair use. This particular factor is gemyrobusually not very helpful in cases involving parodies, because parodies usually involve the use of *@yer0creative forms of expression not factual works. l ? z`3) Amount of work copied If the parody does not use a substantial amount of the original work, e T@zerHthe use of copyrighted material would probably be considered fair use. pui {ti[3) Harm or potential harm to the market If the parody does not compete with the potential atu~{toamarket for the original work or the potential market for derivative works or other parodies, the ed In coriHH K HH 2)@{rkCuse of copyrighted material would probably be considered fair use. cr`| uZ Two examples of cases that involved the use of copyrighted material in parodies include: 2`}a1) Berlin v. E. C. Publications, Inc. 329 F.2d 541 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 822 (1964) eG ~cIn this case, Mad Comics distributed parody lyrics for songs by Irving Berlin. The court ruled in ork\@~od]favor of Mad Comics and after examining earlier parody cases, made the following statement: pq woe". . . While brief phrases of the original lyrics were occasionally injected into the parodies, this Ino\practice would seem necessary if the defendants' efforts were to 'recall or conjure up' the ntivXoriginals; the humorous effect achieved when a familiar line is interposed in a totally gincongruous setting, traditionally a tool of parodists, scarcely amounts to a 'substantial' taking, if rkedathat standard is not to be woodenly applied. Similarly, the fact that defendants' parodies were a ocwritten in the same meter as plaintiffs' compositions would seem inevitable if the original was to nc.Ci_be recognized, but such a justification is not even necessary; we doubt that even so eminent a d pon_composer as plaintiff Irving Berlin should be permitted to claim a property interest in iambic xam@dy pentameter. he. ntd. . . At the very least, where, as here, it is clear that the parody has neither the intent nor the iCth`effect of fulfilling the demand for the original, and where the parodist does not appropriate a oXntbgreater amount of the original work than is necessary to 'recall or conjure up' the object of his m@6satire, a finding of infringement would be improper." `ce a an^2) Acuff-Rose v. Campbell, 972 F.2d 1429 (6th Cir. 1992), cert.granted, 113 S. Ct. 1642, 123 @efL.Ed. 2d 264 (1993). a  o[The publisher of Roy Orbison's song "Oh, Pretty Woman" claimed copyright infringement when wa\the rap group 2 Live Crew reproduced a section from the original Orbison recording in their e[version titled "Pretty Woman." The 2 Live Crew version altered the melody and substituted ereddenigrating lyrics for the original. 2 Live Crew said their song was a parody and constituted fair le@ huse. h* thaThe Court of Appeals reversed an earlier judgment of the District Court and ruled against 2 Live d?e `Crew because: 1) The purpose of the work was primarily commercial. 2) A substantial part of urTf `the original work had been copied. 3) The 2 Live Crew version jeopardized Orbison's potential cei@market for derivative works. ~ thVHowever, in 1994, the Supreme Court heard this case and reversed the Court of Appeals d IR   PttHH!  K nHH  C@ecdecision stating:  ng_"It was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of 2 Live Crew's th2itTparody of "Oh, Pretty Woman" rendered it presumptively unfair. No such evidentiary heGdyfpresumption is available to address either the first factor, the character and purpose of the use, or \t `the fourth, market harm, in determining whether a transformative use, such as parody, is a fair seqri_one. The court also erred in holding that 2 Live Crew had necessarily copied excessively from cop@veCthe Orbison original, considering the parodic purpose of the use." ma ve`The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the lower courts for a review of the four statutory C@$factors used to determine fair use. R`What do you think?  ZDecisions regarding the fair use of copyrighted material in parodies are often subjective bjudgements. Are the four statutory factors used to determine fair use adequate? Should there be @Etighter restrictions on the use of copyrighted material in parodies? o`he .`pr REFERENCES avaC ei[Acuff-Rose Music Inc. v. Campbell, 972 F.2d 1429 (6th Cir. 1992), cert.granted, 113 S. Ct. rthX@deJ1642, 123 L.Ed. 2d 264 (1993), 114 S. Ct. 1164, 127 L. Ed. 2d 500 (1994). m  \Berk, E. and Devlin, J (Eds.). 1991. Hypertext/Hypermedia Handbook. New York: Intertext @th0Publications, McGraw-Hill. ON LIBRARY RESERVE. e `^Berlin v. E. C. Publications, Inc. 329 F.2d 541 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 822 (1964).   C_Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340, 111 S. Ct. 1282, 113 L. Ed. nk?@!358 (1991). ON LIBRARY RESERVE. u maVGorman, R. and Ginsburg, J. 1994. Copyright for the Nineties: Cases and Materials, @us*Charlottesville, VA: The Michie Company.  `Information Infrastructure Task Force (B, Lehman, Chair). 1994. Intellectual property and the he`National Information Infrastructure: A preliminary draft of the report of the Working Group on r.*edaIntellectual Property Rights (Green Paper). Washington, D.C. Available on the Internet: http:// ?@%www.uspto.gov/text/pto/nii/ipwg.html dT te]Samuelson, P. 1994. Copyright's fair use doctrine and digital data. Communications of the .i@VE,ACM 37, no. 1: 21-27. ON LIBRARY RESERVE. ic~ .2XSanjek, D. 1992. "Don't have to DJ no more": Sampling and the "autonomous" creator. nsd$  I   11L.HH%  K  OHH an@ JRCardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 10, no. 2: 607-624. ON LIBRARY RESERVE. ` d Leftd reRightoe d 99 Referencecald d  Id  d  r1( nHne /    ww shv/ tii wBody.  AC 7H1: 1ON BES E  h 2ek .Bulleted\tt. f CellBody. f a CellHeadingl. f ee  Footnote. fT  Heading1Body. fT   Heading2Body. P  H     hAC 71: 1 HeadingRunInBody.  H     h e Indented.  n H     h  Numbered.\t. A  H    He nh .  Numbered1.\tNumbered. f  TableFootnote. fT  7 TableTitleT:Table : .  @P  TitleBody. fxT   TableTitleT:Table : . f u  CellHeading>. f!u CellBody. f"u  CellFooting. #| H  f   h  Body. @$   Header. @%   Footer. Ta@&   Header. in@'  Ce oFooter. * eH .     h  Body. +  H .     h@  Body. uv zVu  x  z  Emphasis{  EquationVariables _|  ~   zV  zV er    I Y O I J K L r M  N =MB= Thin> Medium? HDouble@ Thick@A  Very Thin =>=====> H !"H !"H !" H !"H !"Format B =========? H !"H !"H !"H !"H !"Format A Comment(_-(b. d  BlackT! WhiteddA VReddd Greendd  Blued Cyand Magentad YellowCourier Times-Roman Times-Bold Courier-BoldHelvetica-BoldCourierTimese Helvetica? Regularb Regular BoldRegularAOblique Italic\x?3hሏ3}i6s|J'66D~PT$K3) kx*0[nz|ߠ