by: Nathan Nelson
Have you ever wondered how schools are allowed to show movies during school hours or copy parts of books in handouts without infringing on existing copyrights? One of the exceptions to copyright law is the use of materials for educational purposes. As codified by 17 U.S.C. § 107: Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include 1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2) the nature of the copyrighted work; 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. This is known as the “Fair Use Doctrine.”
Fair use tempers copyright’s exclusive rights to serve the purpose of copyright law, which the US Constitution defines as the promotion of “the Progress of Science and useful Arts” (Art. I, § 8, cl. 8). It is to avoid rigid application of the statute when such application would stifle the creativity it was designed to foster. Princeton Univ. Press v. Mich. Doc. Servs., Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996).
In Zomba Enterprises, Inc. v. Panorma Records, Inc., 491 F.3d 574 (6th Cir. 2007) Defendant entered the business of selling karaoke discs without considering whether doing so infringed on the intellectual property rights of others. Defendant claimed that its karaoke packages were used for teaching. While the court found that there were people who used the product for educational purposes, the court also determined that the end-user’s use of the product is irrelevant; the focus is whether the alleged infringer’s use is for commercial use. Defendant was selling the product for profit and infringing on copyrights.
Be warned that noncommercial use is not necessarily “fair” under this doctrine. While a judge may take the profit motive or lack thereof into account, it isn’t the only factor. In L.A. Times v. Free Republic, the court found that the noncommercial use of LA Times content by the Free Republic Web site was in fact not fair use, since it allowed the public to obtain material at no cost that they would otherwise pay for.