Background
The Reverend Charles Wentworth Upham, a writer and anthologist, had copied 353 pages from the plaintiff's 12-volume biography of George Washington in order to produce a separate two-volume work of his own. [2] The work was published by Bela Marsh, of Marsh, Capen, and Lyon.
The publisher Charles Folsom, of Folsom, Wells and Thurston, who had published the first set of letters (a twelve-volume edition edited by Jared Sparks), sued for "piracy of the copyright". The defendant argued that the papers were not copyrightable because, as the letters of a deceased author, they were not private property and not "proper subjects of copyright"; that even if copyrightable, as works of the President they belonged to the United States; and lastly, that their use was fair, because it was the creation of an essentially new work.
Judge Story famously commented that,
Patents and copyrights approach, nearer than any other class of cases belonging to forensic discussions, to what may be called the metaphysics of law, where the distinctions are, or at least may be, very subtile and refined, and, sometimes, almost evanescent.
The court said first, that the letters were in fact copyrightable subject matter, and that taking even abridged and select portions could be infringement:
It is certainly not necessary, to constitute an invasion of copyright, that the whole of a work should be copied, or even a large portion of it, in form or in substance. If so much is taken, that the value of the original is sensibly diminished, or the labors of the original author are substantially to an injurious extent appropriated by another, that is sufficient, in point of law, to constitute a piracy pro tanto.
This holding effectively expanded copyrightable subject matter significantly, by permitting derivative works to be considered one of the rights of the copyright holder. At the time that Upham had created his collection, abridgments of existing works were not considered infringements. [3]
Second, the court accepted the defendant's argument that uses could be fair, but rejected the claim that this particular use was fair. Justice Story thus destroyed the "abridgment doctrine", while establishing what has come to be known as the "fair use" doctrine. In so doing, the court set forth four factors: the "nature and objects of the selections made" (today characterized as the "purpose and character of the use"); the "quantity and value of the materials used" (described today as two factors: the nature of the original work, and the amount taken); and "the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work".
[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy ...
In short, we must often ... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.
Judge Story drew these considerations in part from a body of English copyright law, as was common at that point.
Over the next century and a half, Folsom v. Marsh was repeatedly cited for its discussion of what uses might be fair, leading to the establishment of what has come to be known as the fair use doctrine. This doctrine was ultimately incorporated into the 1976 Copyright Act as 17 U.S.C. § 107. Although its formulation in Section 107 tracks very closely the iterations in modern case law, the factors themselves are essentially the same as set forth by Judge Story in 1841. Consequently, the Folsom v. Marsh case is regarded as establishing the principle of fair use in American copyright law.
Lyman Ray Patterson excoriated the decision as "the worst intellectual property opinion ever written", critiquing both Judge Story's logic and the outcome – the expansion of the copyright, and the shift in reasoning from a limited monopoly exception, towards a property rationale. [4]
Copyright is a legal concept that is part of the intellectual property area of law, historically known from common law systems of various jurisdictions. It gives the creator of an original work, or another owner of the right, the exclusive, legally secured right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time. The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form. Copyright is intended to protect the original expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. A copyright is subject to limitations based on public interest considerations, such as the fair use doctrine in the United States.
Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. The US "fair use doctrine" is generally broader than the "fair dealing" rights known in most countries, that inherited English Common Law. The fair use right is a general exception, that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works. In the USA, Fair Use right/exception is based on a flexible proportionality test, that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work.
A copyright is the legal protection extended to the owner of the rights in an original work. Original work refers to every production in the literary, scientific, and artistic domains. The Intellectual Property Office (IPOPHL) is the leading agency responsible for handling the registration and conflict resolution of intellectual property rights and to enforce the copyright laws. IPOPHL was created by virtue of Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines which took effect on January 1, 1998, under the presidency of Fidel V. Ramos.
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court copyright law case that established that a commercial parody can qualify as fair use. This case established that the fact that money is made by a work does not make it impossible for fair use to apply; it is merely one of the components of a fair use analysis.
In United States copyright law, transformative use or transformation is a type of fair use that builds on a copyrighted work in a different manner or for a different purpose from the original, and thus does not infringe its holder's copyright. Transformation is an important issue in deciding whether a use meets the first factor of the fair-use test, and is generally critical for determining whether a use is in fact fair, although no one factor is dispositive.
The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to intellectual property:
Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. is a 1992 legal case where the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that there was no copyright infringement made by the Game Genie, a video game accessory that could alter the output of games for the Nintendo Entertainment System. The court determined that Galoob's Game Genie did not violate Nintendo's exclusive right to make derivative works of their games, because the Game Genie did not create a new permanent work. The court also found that the alterations produced by the Game Genie qualified as non-commercial fair use, and none of the alterations were supplanting demand for Nintendo's games.
In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work. The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works.
The copyright law of the United States grants monopoly protection for "original works of authorship". With the stated purpose to promote art and culture, copyright law assigns a set of exclusive rights to authors: to make and sell copies of their works, to create derivative works, and to perform or display their works publicly. These exclusive rights are subject to a time and generally expire 70 years after the author's death or 95 years after publication. In the United States, works published before January 1, 1928, are in the public domain.
Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright without permission for a usage where such permission is required, thereby infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works. The copyright holder is typically the work's creator, or a publisher or other business to whom copyright has been assigned. Copyright holders routinely invoke legal and technological measures to prevent and penalize copyright infringement.
Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit applied American intellectual property law to the reverse engineering of computer software. Stemming from the publishing of several Sega Genesis games by video game publisher Accolade, which had disassembled Genesis software in order to publish games without being licensed by Sega, the case involved several overlapping issues, including the scope of copyright, permissible uses for trademarks, and the scope of the fair use doctrine for computer code.
Micro Star v. FormGen Inc. 154 F.3d 1107 is a legal case applying copyright law to video games, stopping the sales of a compilation of user-generated levels that infringed the copyright of Duke Nukem 3D. Micro Star downloaded the Duke Nukem 3D levels and re-packaged them as Nuke It, after seeing their popularity on the internet. Micro Star filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, asking for declaratory judgment that they had not infringed any copyright. Game publisher FormGen counter-sued, claiming that Micro Star created a derivative work based on Duke Nukem 3D and infringed their copyright.
Fair dealing in United Kingdom law is a doctrine which provides an exception to United Kingdom copyright law, in cases where the copyright infringement is for the purposes of non-commercial research or study, criticism or review, or for the reporting of current events. More limited than the United States doctrine of fair use, fair dealing originates in Sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and requires the infringer to show not only that their copying falls into one of the three fair dealing categories, but also that it is "fair" and, in some cases, that it contains sufficient acknowledgement for the original author. Factors when deciding the "fairness" of the copying can include the quantity of the work taken, whether it was previously published, the motives of the infringer and what the consequences of the infringement on the original author's returns for the copyrighted work will be.
Bela Marsh (1797-1869) was a publisher and bookseller in Boston, Massachusetts, in the 19th century. Authors under his imprint included spiritualists and abolitionists such as John Stowell Adams, Adin Ballou, Warren Chase, Lysander Spooner, and Henry Clarke Wright. Marsh kept offices on Washington Street (ca.1820-1832), Cornhill (ca.1847-1852), Franklin Street (ca.1854-1856), and Bromfield Street (ca.1858-1868). Among his business partners were Nahum Capen, Gardner P. Lyon, T.H. Webb, and George W. Williams. He belonged to the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanic Association and the Physiological Society.
Paraphrasing of copyrighted material may, under certain circumstances, constitute copyright infringement. In most countries that have national copyright laws, copyright applies to the original expression in a work rather than to the meanings or ideas being expressed. Whether a paraphrase is an infringement of expression, or a permissible restatement of an idea, is not a binary question but a matter of degree. Copyright law in common law countries tries to avoid theoretical discussion of the nature of ideas and expression such as this, taking a more pragmatic view of what is called the idea/expression dichotomy. The acceptable degree of difference between a prior work and a paraphrase depends on a variety of factors and ultimately depends on the judgement of the court in each individual case.
Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd., 448 F.3d 605, is a 2006 case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding fair use of images in a pictorial history text. It affirmed the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which held at trial that the publisher's use of several images of past Grateful Dead concert posters and tickets, reduced considerably, in a timeline of the band's history was a sufficiently transformative use.
Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 , is a case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement of digital music. In ReDigi, record label Capitol Records claimed copyright infringement against ReDigi, a service that allows resale of digital music tracks originally purchased from the iTunes Store. Capitol Records' motion for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi was denied, and oral arguments were given on October 5, 2012.
Hubbard v Vosper, [1972] 2 Q.B. 84, is a leading English copyright law case on the defence of fair dealing. The Church of Scientology sued a former member, Cyril Vosper, for copyright infringement due to the publication of a book, The Mind Benders, criticizing Scientology. The Church of Scientology alleged that the books contained material copied from books and documents written by L. Ron Hubbard, as well as containing confidential information pertaining to Scientology courses. Vosper successfully defended the claim under the fair dealing doctrine, with the Court of Appeal deciding unanimously in his favour. The judgment given by Lord Denning clarified the scope and content of the fair dealing defence.
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith is a U.S. Supreme Court case dealing with transformative use, a component of fair use, under U.S. copyright law. At issue was the Prince Series created by Andy Warhol based on a photograph of the musician Prince by Lynn Goldsmith. It held Warhol's changes were insufficiently transformative to fall within fair use for commercial purposes, resolving an issue arising from a split between the Second and Ninth circuits among others.
Blanch v. Koons, 467 F.3d 244, is a copyright case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 2006. Fashion photographer Andrea Blanch sued appropriation artist Jeff Koons for copyright infringement after he used an image of a woman's lower legs taken from one of her photographs in a collage of his own. Koons claimed fair use, arguing he had transformed it sufficiently from its original purpose through his reuse. It is considered a significant case in addressing the latter issue.
