 | It's a brand-new dance/We're bringin' it back (![[info]](http://p-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) ms_xeno) wrote,
@ 2007-12-30 08:30:00 |
Fair Use With Your Morning Coffee
I hope your morning coffee's not Starbucks. Ewwww...
"...Technically, a claim of fair use asserts not that a particular
copyright infringement should be allowed, but that the use is not an
infringement at all. The U.S. Constitution states that the purpose of
copyright is to promote the progress of science and 'useful arts.' It's great
in theory, but in practice copyright law is often used as a weapon against
those who view so-called intellectual property as anything less than sacred..."
The above and what follows (up until you get to the six dancing asterisks) are artist/writer/graphic designer Sean Tejarachi's take on the Constitution's points regarding fair use.
"1) What are you using the copyrighted material for? (Or: What is the nature of your copying?)
"It is fair use to use copyrighted works for criticism (including parody)
comment, news reporting, teaching, education, or research. If you are not
making money from your use, this weighs in favor of a claim of fair use. If
your use is 'transformative,' i.e.- *creating *something *new rather than
simply reproducing the work, fair use is also much more likely to cover it.
"2) How much of the copyrighted work are you using?
"Fair use does not cover 'skimming the cream and getting away scot free.'
Unless you are creating a parody of the copyrighted creative work, you should
not use its essence. However, just what constitutes the essential part is open
to continuous debate. Contrary to popular belief and rumor, there are no hard
and fast rules regarding just how much material you can safely use. It is a
matter of quality, not exact quantity.
"3) What is the nature of the copyrighted work?
"No one can own the truth, and facts cannot be protected by copyright.
Only *creative works are eligible for copyright protection. A fiction piece is
protected, the facts in a non-fiction article are not. In a news piece, for
example, *what *is *being *reported remains unprotected, but *how *it *is
*presented (the creative part) is protected by copyright. Reformat the simple
facts, and you enter fair use. Copyright on creative works is fifty years
after the death of the creator. This limitation does not apply to trademarked
images used in business, which are protected automatically as long as they are
in use.
"4) How will your use affect the value of the original?
"Your use should not diminish the market for the original work. However,
the idea of diminishing the market does not apply to harm done to the market as
the result of a parody. To paraphrase a Supreme Court ruling, there is a
crucial difference between a parody which merely supresses demand and an
infringement which usurps it."
******
What made me go in search of Tejarachi's comments again was this. What a depressing thread on so many levels. Particularly to a collage maker. To see this level of deference to the sanctity of some fucking corporate logo;One that hawks an inferior product which only succeeds owing to the ruthlessness and greed of the modern day robber barons who control it. May I live long enough to see them tarred and feathered with their own shitty product as the fixative. :p
I suppose that as with most things, I hate this unearned and undeserved deference in others precisely because it's in me, too. Rooted clear down to the cellular level before I was even born. There's some carefully preserved cup of brain cells that makes the self defer to the insanely rich and ruthless. Its rationale is someday you could be them, too.
Yarrgh.
Granted most of us need that cup to get through our work week and collect our pay, but on our own time ? How sad to not only preserve it but cultivate it. How pathetic being unable to ever put it down for five minutes. The fact that we need a certain amount of bullshit in order to live doesn't make it stink any less. The fact that it's likely a major defining characteristic in the American soul doesn't make it beautiful. In part because there's no law that states you must bully others and treat others like shit just because it's common practice to do so. Partly also because while I love to joke about how someday I'm going to be the Thomas Kinkeade of collage, everyone knows the odds of that happening are up there with my odds of being struck twice by lightning.
What could be sadder than living half a life due to a non-existent confrontation based upon an unachievable fantasy ?
P.S. - Incidentally, everyone should own at least one issue of Craphound.
