Alright. Now I want to keep it real by going over some factual applications of the fair use doctrine.

visit this ; drow last names
→ Can I quote someone on my website?
Generally speaking, if you only use a short excerpt and have something interesting to say about the original source, you’re never going to run into a claim of copyright infringement.

Why is this? Remember that you’re more likely to be in the clear if your use of the quote is not-for-profit, sciencey, minimal, and acts as a compliment to the original source, not a replacement. Here, an interview with Brangelina is clearly not sciencey (unless your blog post is about the vapidness of modern culture perhaps), so that counts against you. However, assuming that you’re not making any money off your blog, you only excerpted a small portion, and you didn’t harm the market for the full interview, you can most likely still qualify for fair use.

However, if you cut and paste large portions of the interview from a teen-girl-squad-type fashion magazine onto your celebrity gossip blog, and you’ve got paid advertising on your site, then you should expect to receive a nasty-gram from a man in an expensive suit. Your best option here is to get permission first.

→ Can I post someone else’s graphic on my website if I give credit to them?

You can probably get away with posting a thumbnail of a graphic, but not the full size. It doesn’t matter that you credited the original author. You need to get permission to post the full-sized graphic. And this analysis may change if there is a market for thumbnails. For more information, read the case of Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, 336 F.3d 811(9th Cir. Cal. 2003)

→ Is my software vulnerable to fair use?

It is considered within the scope of fair use for a competitor to obtain access to the ideas embodied in software through the object language and then translate it into source code for the sole purpose of determining how the software works. Remember our discussion of the First Amendment. There is a distinction between ideas and expression. Copyright does not protect ideas, but it does protect expression. Under this reasoning, at least one Court has ruled that reverse engineering object code (the expression) to reveal how the software works (the idea), is permissible under current copyright rules. If you want to read this case, please consults Sega Enterprises, Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1993). Thus, the process of disassembly or decompilation is protected by fair use to the extent necessary to reveal the unprotected elements of the copyrighted materials.

→ Is parody considered “fair use”?

Thank Learnedhand most parody is considered fair use! Where would we be without SNL? Sadly, I had to write that “most” parody is considered fair use instead of “all.” Not all judges have a sense of humor, unfortunately. Some judges insist that parody is only fair use where the original source is the “object” or “target” of parody. If the copyrighted material is merely used as a weapon to criticize something else, then it may not qualify as fair use. For further reading consider the case of Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books U.S. A. Inc., 924 F. Suppo. 1559 (S.D. Cal. 1996). The court in that case determined that the defendant was not entitled to a fair use defense when he applied Dr. Seuss rhymes, illustrations, and rhythms to the O.J. Simpson murder trial without commenting on the deep themes of "The Cat in the Hat."

Judges who support this view believe that a parody must do more than be entertaining (booh!). Instead, it must make some comment or criticism about the original work. The concern is that unless the parody makes some comment or criticism, then it is really just a derivative work based on the original and permission is required.
 
 
Visit This: getloadedinthepark