This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
this article does not present an international viewpoint
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)
Surely a special case :) The photo of "al-Hukaymah" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Hasan_Khalil_al-Hakim 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)
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in big font in the first section of the article "Fair use under United States law" between "The fact that a work is unpublished shall..."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)
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)
Does anyone know anything about fair use in performance (showing movies, singing happy birthday, etc)?-- Jake13jake 14:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
"...fair use analyses consider certain aspects of the work to be relevant..."
What's this supposed to mean? Analysis, analyzes, etc? 199.126.1.82 ( talk) 05:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
Hi Rebecca. I recently read an article about performance licensing that might be helpful. -- Driscoll ( talk) 19:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
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. 65.78.144.144 ( 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)
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.
Thanks,
Alan 24.184.184.177 ( talk) 04:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
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 24.184.184.177 ( 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)
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)
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. 96.37.24.113 ( 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.
71.60.231.120 ( talk) 18:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:
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:
Only a patent comes close to exclusive ownership of an idea, and in fact
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.
--
Jerzy•
t 06:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
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). blurred peace ☮ 04:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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 69.115.204.217 ( talk) 21:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
69.171.160.131 ( talk) 00:09, 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.
69.171.160.87 ( talk) 00:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |