"Fox News is winning more than just the news network ratings wars. It's also winning the battle against copyright's fair use doctrine. In August, a federal judge sided (PDF) with the news station's copyright-infringement lawsuit against a television and radio clipping service known as TVEyes, which charges as much as $500 a month for its service. A New York federal judge ruled that wanton sharing, time searching, and downloading of Fox News' news segments is not fair use. Then in November, US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled TVEyes could not allow its clients—like the White House, American Red Cross, members of Congress, and others—to download Fox News clips. The judge also ordered TVEyes to block users from searching Fox News clips and from allowing them to share them on social media... All of this begs the question of what is fair use. It's complicated, and there is no bright-line rule."
Showing posts with label case by case basis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label case by case basis. Show all posts
Thursday, December 3, 2015
Sharing of television news clips hangs in the fair-use balance; ArsTechnica.com, 12/2/15
David Kravets, ArsTechnica.com; Sharing of television news clips hangs in the fair-use balance:
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
All's Fair Under Fair Use?; Forbes.com, 5/13/09
Via Forbes.com; All's Fair Under Fair Use?: A nebulous legal doctrine collides with collapsing ad revenues and explosive growth in digital news:
"On a late May morning, Srinandan R. Kasi, general counsel for the Associated Press, eyes four clusters of blue dots scattered across his computer screen as if they were a crime scene. Each dot represents a unique URL hosting content carrying a digital fingerprint of an AP-produced story.
Most dots, says Kasi, are infringers--sites who carry AP work without permission, or don't link material back to the AP...
The issue at hand: abuse of "fair use," a nebulous legal doctrine that allows use of copyrighted material without permission from the creators. The AP has been wrangling with Google and other aggregators over its definition for three years.
Now, with a collapsing ad pie and explosive growth in digital news platforms, defining fair use is suddenly critical for media companies from The New York Times and The Washington Post to conglomerates like News Corp. and Time Warner.
Yet for all its importance, it remains a tricky concept courts determine on an agonizing case-by-case basis--making it difficult to determine whether the Next Big Thing on the Web is providing a valuable public service or violating copyright law on a wholesale basis."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/12/copyright-fair-use-business-media-fair-use.html
"On a late May morning, Srinandan R. Kasi, general counsel for the Associated Press, eyes four clusters of blue dots scattered across his computer screen as if they were a crime scene. Each dot represents a unique URL hosting content carrying a digital fingerprint of an AP-produced story.
Most dots, says Kasi, are infringers--sites who carry AP work without permission, or don't link material back to the AP...
The issue at hand: abuse of "fair use," a nebulous legal doctrine that allows use of copyrighted material without permission from the creators. The AP has been wrangling with Google and other aggregators over its definition for three years.
Now, with a collapsing ad pie and explosive growth in digital news platforms, defining fair use is suddenly critical for media companies from The New York Times and The Washington Post to conglomerates like News Corp. and Time Warner.
Yet for all its importance, it remains a tricky concept courts determine on an agonizing case-by-case basis--making it difficult to determine whether the Next Big Thing on the Web is providing a valuable public service or violating copyright law on a wholesale basis."
http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/12/copyright-fair-use-business-media-fair-use.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)