I’ve been researching what the best practices are these days for copyright, and I’ll be writing about them in articles soon. But one area of copyright is really difficult to understand for most publishers, and for bloggers too for that matter. And that is: What constitutes “fair use”?
To answer this question I’m very fortunate to have an expert to guide us. Today’s guest post is by Attorney David L. Amkraut, and you can find out more about David at the end of the article. Enjoy!
Fair Use and Copyright
“Fair use” is a legal doctrine which excuses acts that would otherwise be copyright infringement. Infringers who are caught invariably yell, “Fair Use.” But fair use is misunderstood by many infringers. And authors. And photographers and illustrators, too. Let’s try to explain it in plain terms.
Fair Use is an “affirmative defense”—the defendant copier has the burden of proof to show that Fair Use applies. Essentially he says, “Yes, I copied the work—but I am allowed to because my copying is “Fair Use.”
The doctrine developed to allow limited and reasonable uses of copyright–protected work. Examples include a reviewer quoting briefly from a book, or a teacher using brief passages from a book to teach English usage or writing. Copying allowed by Fair Use is usually, though not always, a small part of a work and typically includes an author credit and attribution.
In fancy words, “It [fair use] was created to allow use of copyright (sic) material for socially valuable purposes such as commentary, parody, news reporting, education and the like, without permission of the copyright holder.”
Fair uses are generally, though not always, for non–profit purposes. Fair use is seldom allowed where the copier’s use competes directly with the work or harms its commercial value. Such as lifting entire chapters from a book, to sell online. Or copying piles of text and entire groups of photos from a website, to stock a competing website.
The Four Factor Test
Fair Use is not a rigid “bright line” legal rule. Rather, courts do a case–by–case analysis of the facts, using a “Four Factor test” to analyze whether Fair Use applies in a given situation. The four factors are stated in the opinion of the famous Joseph Story in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841). There the defendant 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.
Here’s a good explanation of how you apply the Four Factor test:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of … [copyright] … the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction … 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:
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”
Scenarios: Is it “Fair Use” or is it Infringement?
Let’s play judge. It’ll be fun. The first two are easy ones. The other examples are not as simple.
Scenario 1: An English teacher prints a classroom handout, and includes a quotation from a book on the Grand Canyon, to show pithy writing: “…the awful heat sucked out his thinking ability like a brain vampire…”
Analysis: Teacher prevails on all four factors. This is exactly the type of usage that falls squarely under Fair Use.
Scenario 2: A gigantic online operator—let’s call it Giggle.com—scans and stores 11+ Million books (including yours), without any permission from the copyright holder. Then it uses the unauthorized scans to reproduce and sell the books in both printed (“P-book”) and electronic (“E-book”) form. Giggle gets sued, and claims Fair Use as a defense.
Analysis: Defendant fails on Factor 1, because the use is for money. Factor 2 is unfavorable to defendant. Defendant fails on Factor 3 because Giggle is copying the entire book, not just portions. Defendant fails strongly on Factor 4 because defendant is unfairly and directly competing with the rightful owner and hurting his market for the book. Thus, defendant Giggle should be judged to be committing copyright infringement.
Scenario 3: You’re a college professor as well as a writer or self–publisher. You gather full chapters from several books, and have them copied, printed, and bound to create your course’s required readings. The students buy the compilation at a copying service company. You, the professor, get a lucrative kickback. The owners of copyright in the works you copied get nothing. You and the copying service get sued. You claim Fair Use.
Analysis: You fail on Factor 1, because you are making money, not just using the copied work for education. Factor 2 is unfavorable to you. You argue like crazy but are wrong on Factors 3 and 4. By the way, this scenario is based on an actual case, and defendants lost. The Court may have also been disgusted with defendants’ “dirty hands,” involving the copying services and bookstores paying kickbacks or commissions to the professors. You lose. Not Fair Use.
Here are a few more interesting scenarios. We don’t need to analyze them in detail, now that you’re getting so sophisticated and already starting to think like a judge or lawyer.
Scenario 4: The magazine The Nation printed an excerpt from President Ford’s book on President Nixon. Although the excerpt was only a tiny part of the work, it was almost the only part anyone cared about. (Nixon’s comments when abdicating) Publisher sued.
Result: Court ruled it was not Fair Use. Most interesting was the Court’s analysis of Factor 3: although the amount copied was small, its substantiality was large. The Court was also influenced by the fact that The Nation obtained the manuscript surreptitiously and “scooped” the copyright owner’s intended serialization by several weeks.
Scenario 5: You are a self–publisher or author or micro-publisher finishing a book on keeping kids healthy. You realize you need a cute headshot of a happy smiling teenager. You want to save a few dollars, so you find a nice photo in a women’s magazine, scan it, and use on your book cover. Copyright holder sues you. You claim Fair Use.
Result: You lose.
Advice: Don’t steal photos. Buy a license.
Scenario 6: You are a self–publisher or author or micro-publisher preparing a book on the evolution of lighting styles in fashion photography. You scan some photos from a fashion magazine and use them to comment and explain concepts like “soft lighting,” “hard lighting, ” and “catalog lighting.” Copyright holder sues you. You claim Fair Use.
Result: You should win. The use is incidental to the book, doesn’t harm the rights–holder, and is for the purpose of education and commentary.
Scenario 7: Several years ago the Danish publication Jyllens–Posten published cartoons of Muhammed, the founder of Islam. You’re a self–publisher or author or micro–publisher preparing a serious book on the cartoons, to discuss the cartoons, the Muslim uproar, attacks on Danes, burning of Danish property, Muslim cartoons in their own media inciting violence, etc. You reproduce the cartoons in your book. Copyright–holder Jyllens–Posten sues you. What result?
Result: You’ll probably win on Fair Use. The topic is of tremendous public importance. The cartoons are shown in the context of that topic and in a book with serious commentary. And it is impossible to meaningfully discuss the cartoons without actually showing the cartoons in their entirety.
Really, when you strip away the fancy language, Fair Use is a pretty sensible concept. It gives “breathing room” to the First Amendment and tries to strike a balance between protecting the copyright owner’s property rights, and encouraging valuable activities such as scholarship and public discussion. Fair Use comes down to whether the use is “fair” and should be allowed.
About the Author
David L. Amkraut is a Los Angeles-based Attorney at law. His practice emphasizes cutting-edge Internet-related copyright matters. Among other cases, he was attorney for the plaintiffs in Louder v. CompuServe, a class-action case involving unauthorized publication of 930 photographs of models by the 2nd-largest Internet Service Provider in the world. He also served as counsel in KNB v. Matthews, an important case defining the relationship between copyright and the “Right of Publicity” in still photographs. Law Offices of David L. Amkraut, 2272 Colorado Blvd., #1228, Los Angeles, CA 90041
Thanks to David for this very informative article. Check the “Related Posts” links below for more articles about copyright.
{ 69 comments… read them below or add one }
This is so helpful, Joel! I get most of it — except for Scenarios 5 and 6. I don’t get why one is fair use and the other isn’t. Don’t know if this is too hard to explain via a comment, but if you can, I’d be interested in learning more.
Also, is it fair use if a teacher xeroxes a few chapters out of a book to distribute in class for discussion? Is the fair use issue different if the teacher scans the chapters and posts them online at a website that only the students can view?
Betty Ming Liu’s questions:
QUESTION RE: Differerence between Scenarios 5 and 6.
Scenario 5 is not fair use. All four factors are against fair use:
1. Purpose of use: commercial activity, no attribution, profiting from use, for public distribution. Not, e.g., scholarship, criticism.
2. Nature: work is creative and artistic. Weighs against fair use compared to factual or non-fiction work.
3. Amount: infringer took the whole work.
4. Market effect: Infringer used it widely and repeatedly, deprives owner of licensing or sale fee.
Scenario 6 is likely to be fair use:
1. Purpose: used for criticism, comment, scholarship. Strongly favors fair use.
2. Nature of work: creative, artistic; weighs against fair use.
3. Amount: copied whole photo, but necessary to do so for the use. weighs against, but slightly.
4. Market effect: Should not impair market for original work, might stimulate it. Somewhat favors fair use.
OTHER COMMENTS: A commonsense argument: how else does a critic, scholar, news reporter, etc. discuss a photographic work except by showing it, or discuss his theories except with illustrative examples?
QUESTION RE: classroom use of book chapters (both printed or on teacher’s web site):
Not a fair use. A four factor analysis: 1. Purpose is legitimate and favors fair use; 2. Nature of work— factual or creative/artistic is not stated, therefore unclear. 3. Amount taken is substantial, not mere excerpt; 3. Market effect is ruinous to author and publisher; students who would otherwise be expected to buy the book would not do so. In addition, the teacher had other legitimate approaches such as placing a copy or two of the book on reserve in the school library.
People considering such classroom use might also look at the best known set of guidelines, “Guidelines for Classroom Copying in Not for Profit Educational Institutions with Respect to Books and Periodicals.” Originally, accompanying the Copyright Act of 1976, Congress originally these guidelines in House Report 94-1476. However, the guidelines were not included in the Copyright Act of 1976 and are therefore not “the law.”
Several final comments: First, understand that fair is not cut and dried but requires case by case analysis of the facts. Some fact patterns are clearly fair use and some are not; a reasonable judge could decide only one way. But many fact patterns are close calls. The judge must scrutinize the factors and then balance them, applying the “rule of reason” and trying to be just. By the way, close fair use cases are a favorite topic in law school exams and moot court, because reasonable arguments can be made on both sides.
Second, ask how you would you feel if you were the author of a textbook whose market was destroyed by widespread copying, not of brief excerpts, but of whole chapters? Widespread copying of specialized publications has driven some scholarly and scientific publications out of business.
Third, one statement in the underlying article should be clarified. Although the concept of fair use has been around for a long time, the four factors were codified in U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Section 107, titled “Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use.”
Wow. It’s so generous of you to take the time and explain this in such detail. Thank you for sharing!
Betty, thanks for asking some real-world questions. And thanks again to David for explaining with these real-world cases, how to apply the “four factors” test. As both a content creator (author of this blog and books) as well as a publisher (in which role I use other people’s works) I know it’s really important to be sensitive to the people behind the works themselves. That’s why David’s last point, about how one would feel as the party being copied, is crucial to me. Great stuff.
Interesting post – thanks for adding the cases! As a relatively new writer, I’m still picking up on concepts like this. While I had heard of “fair use,” I wasn’t clear on the specifics. This helped tremendously – thanks!
Shelley, it’s getting more and more important to understand this idea of fair use, what you can do as a writer, and what you can’t do unless you have specific permission. Something we all have to learn and be reminded of.
This is great! I was wondering about my use of a lyric from a song in a chapter of my book. The lyrics are positive, happy, and promote self reliance and I use it as an example of the same principals in the chapter.
Is that fair use? Or am I infringing on the writer’s copyright? I give credit the singer, the name of the album, etc.
If it is infringement, how does one go about getting the rights to use the material? At least the lines from the song?
Alisha, let me guess: you are talking about “I will survive” by Gloria Gaynor – right?
I often get pictures from goggle images for my blog posts. Should I be purchasing them from istock instead? When we publish a book we always purchase the photos but rarely when putting them in a post.
In Scenario 4 I was unclear how that was a violation of fair use. I always thought you could quote from another source if you references the source.
Re: Julia’s two questions:
1. Using someone else’s pics is usually infringement, unless it falls under fair use or (very unlikely) the pic has been put in the public domain by the rights owner. This does not sound like fair use and there is no evidence presented that the pic has been put in the public domain. Whether you are likely to have a problem as a practical matter is a different question.
The fact that you got the picture through Google Images or some similar mechanism does not insulate or protect you from liability. One court has held that Google’s operation of Google Images is legally permissible because it is a “transformative use.” The decision has been widely criticized as misunderstanding technology, standing copyright law on its head, and being extraordinarily protective of Google. But court decisions like that do not protect the person who gets pics through Google. But, you ask, “How can Google do what it does millions of times a day with millions of pics it doesn’t own, and I am liable for using one pic in one trivial way?” I would sympathisize with you but that’s the situation right now.
2. Scenario 4 above (The Harper and Row v. the Nation case): No. Don’t confuse copyright infringement with plagiarism. The essence of plagiarism is that the copier fails to acknowledge the real author but claims work as his own. The crux of copyright infringement is that the copier uses someone’s work without their permission. Copyright infringement would still be copyright infringement even if the copier credits the author.
David, thanks again for your input. I frequently use Stock.xchng, which makes use of the Creative Commons licensing, making it possible to use their images for blog posts as long as you credit them. This is explained in the Licensing section of their website. You can also search on Flickr based on the rights assigned by Creative Commons, so you can use works you find that way too.
Good explanation David and Joel! That makes sense with the Google pics thing. I use photos from Google on my blog and I give them credit (usually) from the site at least.
See my post above for copyright infringement regarding song lyrics. Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Great article!
If only more people would actually pay attention to explanations such as this. Unfortunately, those who need it most are the least likely to bother trying to understand fair use. I’ve lost count of the number of times people have posted my content on other blogs without permission and, when I brought it to their attention, tried to tell me I should be grateful for all the extra “exposure.”
And it’s funny, but Scenario 2 sounds so familiar to me…it even made me…giggle?
You know, Walt, even when I point this out to authors specifically, many will deny they are doing anything “wrong” or “improper.” What’s odd is that people who infringe are often content creators themselves, but don’t seem to stop to ask how they would feel if others did the same thing with their content. Thanks for coming by for a … giggle.
In Google Image Search you can select “advanced search” and choose “Usage Rights” which searches ONLY for creative commons licensed images. You can specify:
* labeled for reuse
* labeled for commercial reuse
* labeled for reuse with modification
* labeled for commercial reuse with modification
The Flickr advanced search allows “Only search within Creative Commons-licensed content” and you select commercial or non-commercial use.
I believe that all of Wikimedia commons images are available for reuse as well.
My understanding of the “Giggle” case was that initially e-sales were not part of the Book Scan project, except for public domain works. I didn’t have a problem with Giggle scanning and selling public domain works, just like any other publisher. Once anything is in public domain it should never be allowed to be removed from the public domain. Project Gutenberg is a much better solution. (Volunteer driven; better quality, free. )
Yes, Giggle was scanning whole copyright books but only providing a couple of pages, or a “fair use sized portion” so people could search a few lines of text and call up the page it was on in a search.
The first I heard of Giggle’s acquisition of digital rights to everything they scanned was in the terms of the “Giggle Books Settlement”, where Giggle went from accused copyright infringer to being given title to the digital rights to everything they scan.
From where I sit, allowing Giggle to scan all the books in all the world to make them searchable was a fair use and would have been incredibly good, not just for Giggle, but to creators and audience too. Having a settlement where Giggle gets title to everything they scan for a nominal fee is ludicrous.
Copyright laws need to change but allowing Giggle or anyone else to control the digital market would be a very bad thing. Almost as bad as A.C.T.A.
Laurel, thanks for your detailed comment. The Google Image Advanced Search is a really great tip for bloggers and publishers alike, thanks for that.
There has been so much confusion, misinterpretation and shifting parameters of the “Giggle” case that it’s hard to get a grip on. We have had long detailed discussions on several of the publisher lists and, quite frankly, I find it arduous to follow. But taken on its face, to scan and then make available copyrighted works, all without any notice or permission from the copyright holder just seems a remarkable infringement, regardless of any good that might come from it. The project seems to want to exist outside of any laws that might constrain it. Unless individual rights holders are given some say in the matter, it will continue to seem invasive to me.
Great explanation about the fair use rules. I definitely understand them better now. this will be helpful as my writing gets ready to head into the world and a good reminder for me to be careful what I am copying or using from other websites or books.,
Thanks
Justin
Hey Justin, thanks for that. It’s amazing how often you see articles in the news about a highly-respected author simply overlooking attributions for the quotations they are using and, consequently, landing in hot water. Good to have a system of some kind to track these quotes during research.
Hi, im studying as a designer, im very small time and still havent taken any kind of well paying jobs. I made some cover artwork for a CD press kit for my band and used a photo (which i later found out was featured in playboy) on the front. The image is heavily cropped and ultimatley only aproximatly 10 to 15% of the original image is still visible. It has also been changed to a black and white halftone rendering, and is really only just the womans face. I left a credit on the back too, reading “photo courtesy of Playboy.com”
Is this ok?
Since im not being paid for the job, and the CD its self isnt generating any revenue at all (simply a promotional give away to venues and people interested in booking the band) is this covered by fair use?
If not, is it covered by anything else? I just want to make sure it wont potentially bring a legal shit storm down on us, because we are a very small band and couldnt afford a law suit.
Any help would be much appreciated. great article by the way!
you can see the image im refering to being used for the background of the bands current myspace page at http://www.myspace.com/deathvalleymustangs
Hi James, thanks for your comment.
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems that David Amkraut covered some of these kinds of uses in his article. Since you don’t own the image, and you haven’t acquired any rights to use it from the copyright owner, it’s probably not allowed. However, if you can’t identify the image in your final artwork it might be challenging for anyone to realize that you’ve used it. Whether or not you were paid for the job, and whether or not the CD is being given away or sold don’t make any difference.
Great article! Thanks! A friend pointed me to it since I am currently resarching fair use for my own book, which is a humorous gift book that includes a few quotes from humor writers and comedians. In my case, my publisher says these fall under “fair use” and no permissions are needed (since they are very short quotes), but based on what you’ve written, I’m not totally convinced that they do. E.g., my book is obviously a for-profit endeavor and the quoted works are generally creative nonfiction (humor books or stand-up routines). I’d like to believe my pub–seems like they should know!–but I’m the one on the hook for copyright infringement if they’re wrong. Do most authors bother to get permission for short quotes used in their books? (e.g., in chapter headings?) My guess is that even when they should do it they don’t, either because they don’t realize it’s infringement or because they figure they won’t get caught.
Jenn, when I was a publisher I think I would have said the same thing your publisher said. However, having read David’s piece here and a lot that’s been written on this topic since, I’d have to say my certainty has diminished, if you know what I mean. I think I’d try to get a professional opinion if you think you would be exposing yourself to any liability. Often it’s not that difficult to get permission, sometimes you just have to ask. You should find out if your publisher is willing to pay for or split any licensing fees that might be necessary. I assume he’s keeping at least 80% of the profit?
I wish I’d seen this when it had been originally posted because I have questions about an idea I have. Do I need to get permission to use the name of musician or group in the title of a book (hypothetical i.e. “U2 is my Spirit Guide”? How much of the lyrics can I use within the book before I need to get permission (i.e. if the character is singing along with the radio or at a concert or something)
Celise, I’m not an attorney but I understand that you cannot copyright titles per se. It may be that U2 has trademarked their name, in which case it is possibly an infringement. On the lyrics, it’s pretty widely known that some musicians are vigilant about others quoting from them. I’ve heard of some that will let one line go by, but will sue if there are 2 lines from the same song used. If you have any questions I urge you to get advice from an intellectual property lawyer, since it’s only by looking at the specific issue that a judgment can be made. And if you find anything out that you feel would help others, please come back and post it.
I wanted to make a connection between you and Nils Montan, a copywrite lawyer among other things, but he’s an really nice guy; and true internet personality. Maybe you guys could do a “Joint” piece together or something. I met him on linkedin, and I’ve always enjoyed what he has to say. Thanks for this article, it is awesome. I am working on a short book, Worlds Best Tips about all kinds of ideas and functions involving the internet, and no cost efficiency tips. Follow me on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/WorldsBestTips, and if you don’t mind, I would like to list this tweet on the permanent list of “Great Ideas” and it will stay up there for all to see. Once again thanks for your layperson style, lucid and comprehensive writing style, I really appreciate you.
Lonny Dunn, Director of Operations
SmartPeopleMarketing.com
Lonny, thanks for that. And for the referral, I will certainly look up Nils Montan.
Sure, I’d be flattered to be included in your “Best Tips”! And thanks for reading.
Great article! Makes things very clear. Thanks so much!
Sure, Pati. Nice to have you visiting.
I have a question I’m working on.
A magazine took photos of a friend of mine who is a well-known soccer player. He was given copies of the photos, some of which were published. His publicist wants to use some of the photos for a brochure for his public appearances.
I’ve asked the magazine for permission to use them, but they have a restriction in their contract with the agency that did the photography for “commercial use.” We are still awaiting a response from the agency.
The publicist insists that because they are photos of himself, as a public figure he has full rights to use them in a commercial manner if he so desires. I’m convinced that we must have a release from the agency, particularly since the agency’s contract with the magazine prohibits further commercial use.
Who is correct?
In response to BJ Brant’s question about photos of the soccer player: The photographer’s publicist is in error.
The photographer who shot the photos, or the agency or magazine the photographer worked for, owns copyright in the photos. (I do not know the arrangement between photog and othes as to rights) Therefore the soccer player and his publicist are not free to use the photos unless they have a license from the copyright holder. Absent such permission, doing so would infringe copyright.
David, thanks for your response. I can see how this could be confusing but the principle at least, is clear. If you create it, it’s your creative expression, you own the copyright (except, as David notes, where some other contractual arrangement exists). Thanks for the question, BJ, I’m sure that clarified this issue for others as well.
I am an American working for Saudi Arabia’s King Saud University (KSU), and I’ve been asked to explore ways to improve the University Website’s English language news reporting (quality, procedures, etc.)
As many notable American professors and researchers are visiting KSU these days for lectures and conferences, I am in constant need of photos for articles announcing their upcoming appearances.
Do head shots from their university Websites or research organizations fall under “fair use” for an article on our news portal? It seems that, in our case, posting an article with a head shot would pass the Four Factor test…
ksu.edu.sa
enews.ksu.edu.sa
Thanks,
Brett Tomashek
Hi Brett,
Thanks for your question. Rights to photographs would ordinarily be held either by the photographer or, if their arrangement specified, with the subject or one or the other of their employers. Since we can’t know these arrangements, it’s safe so say that they are protected.
On the other hand, it’s probably “common practice” for people to use photos like these that are, after all, intended for publicity purposes. If you used my photo to tell your 100,000 friends what a great guy I am, I probably wouldn’t protest. But keep in mind that the photos are protected—someone owns the rights to them.
I won’t venture an opinion on the “four factors” test because the answers David has given above sometimes are surprising.
Thanks for being part of the conversation.
I am in a computer class for teachers. I am trying to find out if I can use a picture of the cover of a book on voicethreads (or a similar site) so students can comment on a book?
Yes, it’s fine to use a picture of the cover of a book Heidi.
Have read through everyone’s helpful comments and questions. Thank you for publishing this. Have a couple of questions in different areas.
FIRST QUESTION:
Getting ready to self-publish my first book and have quoted various authors, but none above the % allowed by “fair use” so I think everything falls under the guidelines. Have not requested written permission from everyone, because it is not more than a couple lines from any that I am publishing.
1) Should I seek all in writing?
SECOND QUESTION:
One publisher that I requested permission from (for three quotes) only has rights to the U.S. & Canada for the book that I have quoted. My quandary is that they are not releasing permission for an E-book format.
2)Wondering if you might have suggestions for how to navigate this? Are their others ways of seeking the permission to have it be electronic?
It seems that this would be essential considering the day and age we live in. Would appreciate any thoughts you might have.
Becky, usually you have to tell the rights holder what use you want to put the work to. So for ebooks, you should state that in your request. To my knowledge, there is no “percentage allowed by fair use” please read the article for the “four tests” instead. Hope that helps!
I want to use some images of James Bond in a book I’m writing. When I go to find the copyright owner, I don’t know where to begin to contact them. I come across several websites that have legal disclaimers like these
http://www.jamesbondmm.co.uk/legal
http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/interact/copyrightnotice.php3
And I get confused.
Can I use the images I want and in the appendix just put all the info that the copyright belongs to them? Or do I have to contact them to get their permission?
I see pictures in magazines that have images and they have the copyright printed on the image. Is that all it takes to use an image or did they hunt down the owner of every image they use?
Thanks
Matthew, you cannot just use other people’s property without their permission. The photos of James Bond are all owned either by the James Bond estate or the makes of the James Bond films. The reason people show a copyright with pictures printed in magazines is because it’s usually a condition of allowing the publication to use them. And yes, the magazines hunt down the owner of every image they want to use and obtain rights, or they do not use them. Hope that helps.
Thanks! You are the Man! (you have my permission to quote me on that
Hi,
Interesting piece and very interesting comment. A minor correction to the article. You mention ‘Jyllens Posten’ as publisher of the Muhammed Cartoons. Although I know what you mean the name of the paper is not correct. It’s called ‘Jyllandsposten’ instead. Jylland is the most western part of Denmark.
Again, thanks for the very interesting piece.
Thanks for the correction, Henrik, I’ll pass it along to the author of the piece.
Thanks to Henrik for the correction on JYLLANDSPOSTEN. In mitigation, I should say that I have visited Denmark and enjoyed seeing the Little Mermaid, Tivoli, and a ferry trip to Oslo.
You are welcome. But I can also understand why you wrote Jyllens instead of Jylland, because they sound very much alike when spoken. And you must have noticed when you visited that Danish is a very hard language to understand. I’ve heard comments saying it sounds like we are coughing when we speak
Sincerely,
Henrik
Hi Joel,
I found your info very helpful, as I was cautious to even quote a song or name of a book.
I am quoting the “Logical” song by super tramps, and name of a recent popular book in my book.
where should i go to ask for permission to include these?
thanks,
kay
You don’t need permission to quote the title of a book. Book titles are not copyrighted.
I am unfamiliar with the “Logical” song or the “super tramps,” but quotations from songs would be governed by the rules of fair use. That is the legal answer, and it is impossible to hazard further comment without knowing how much material will be quoted and the uses to which it will be put.
The practical answer, in contrast to the legal one, is that many music owners are extremely aggressive about protecting their material, threatening and suing over even incidental, partial or trivial quotations, so you may wish to contact the publisher or rights owner.
Thanks a lot David for your response. I contacted Khaled’s agent and she confirmed what you said about quoting Kite Runner name only.
on the logical song, I found out that Roger Hodgson owns the rights to it as he was the original writer, even though he was w/ the Supertramp band.
I am quoting this whole lyric and just stating how my childhood years felt like how these lyrics talk about our innocent childhood years. I am also stating who the owner of these lyrics is.
Regards,
Kay
Hi,
It is okay to quote from the Bible and do you need permission to paraphrase a similar concept from another book?
Bible question: The Old and New Testaments were not protected by copyright when written, and therefore you may freely quote the Aramaic, Hebrew, or Greek.
Translations such as the King James version are long since out of copyright, if there ever was one, and may be freely quoted.
“Modern” translations may be protected by copyright, depending on when they were written and other factors.
“Paraphrasing a similar concept from another book” question: Central to copyright law is the point that ideas and concepts can not be protected by copyright; only their specific expression can be so protected. Thus you can express a similar concept or idea in your own words. Exactly how much you have to paraphrase in order to avoid infringing, is a case-specific question.
Thanks David, for handling these inquiries.
Many thanks for your invaluable information, David. I wonder how one would proceed with a self-published book that contains nothing but quotes from others, ie. an anthology of quotes. I have seen some (from major pub houses) that include copyright info and permissions but I am sure I have seen others that don’t. Could one produce a series of anthologies that include the attribution but not the source in which it appeared? My idea is to produce a series from spiritual teachers to inspire others, but not if it lands me in a legal sink-hole.
I am still in shock over the Lakers’ shocking loss to Dallas, highlighted by the ejection of two Lakers for flagrant fouls. However, with the usual cautions that is a general comment and I would have to see the specific work to offer legal advice, and speaking with a broad brush:
I am still in shock over the Lakers’ loss to Dallas, highlighted by the ejection of two Lakers for flagrant fouls. However, with the usual cautions that this is a general comment and I would want to ask some clarifying questions and would have to see the specific work and get an idea of what are considered brief quotations to offer legal advice, and painting with a broad brush:
First, many of the most reproduced quotations would either never have been under copyright, or would be long since out of copyright, e.g. Buddha, Moses, Jesus, various popes, Bible, Luther, et al.
Second, as to brief quotations: here is what the Copyright Office has to say:
“Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports. There are no legal rules permitting the use of a specific number of words, a certain number of musical notes, or percentage of a work. Whether a particular use qualifies as fair use depends on all the circumstances. See 1. FL 102, Fair Use, and Circular 21, Reproductions of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians.
Third, it is hard to find cases of anyone complaining about brief quotations, let alone suing over use of them in the kind of collection you describe.
Fourth, each of us might differ on what we consider a “brief” quotation. “Make my day…” (Dirty Harry) or “I’ll make him an offer he can’t refuse” (Godfather I), if reprinted, are unlikely to cause the reprinter to be bothered. Long passages of dialogue are a different matter. In between these poles is what lawyers get to argue about, or law students argue about in moot court.
Fifth, if any of the fair use factors are present, they would help protect the use. The idea of fair use, after all, is to encourage activity like criticism, commentary, satire by allowing the writer some breathing room.
Sixth, as a practical matter rather than a legal one, I (like you) have seen lots of books containing hundreds or thousands of quotations, some of the quotations still within copyright. I doubt that these publishers have gone to the trouble of trying to track down the rights holders of every quotation to seek permission. For the particular project you describe, also, perhaps a spiritually evolved person would be less likely to resort to law courts…
Attributing the author but not crediting the source book: crediting the source book would not protect you from liability, nor would declining to credit the source book create liability where there otherwise is none. This question is often asked in an academic context, but one must not confuse copyright violation (using someone else’s creative work without license) with plagiarism (failing to credit someone else’s work and using it as your own).
I hope these comments are helpful.
Absolutely. I can’t thank you enough for taking the time to answer my queries in such detail. It certainly has put my mind at ease. Most of the quotes are less than three sentences, with the majority being just one or two. Thanks again.
Good Evening,
I am an up an coming writer. I’m currently working on a book and I have read some of the previous comment’s in regards to using quotations.
I guess what I’m trying to ask is if I was to use a quote from a cartoon charactor, or any other source to make an example whould I have to get permission from all in which I have used paticular quotes.
The book that is being written is based on my own opinon’s and views. I just don’t want to get caught up in the whole thing of being sued once it has been published.
Can anyone assit me with answering that question. Thank You
See my comment above in response to a similar question about using brief quotations. Again, the issue is what you mean by “brief.”
Thank you Joel, for your explanations that have put my mind at ease.
All I need now is find the time to write and remember all the good advice, then start contacting the subjects of my many pictures who live in Timbuktuuuuu!
Hi, I am also a first-time writer. I have quoted Supertramp’s Logical song – the first section of it, and have listed the writer of the song. I am pointing to this song on how it brought-up my own magical childhood experiences.
Additionally, I have listed other artists’ song titles, along w/ their names, in other areas of the book. These are listed by me to comment on different times of my life that I played their songs for they had relevance to where I was in my development.
Would I need to get permission from any of the two cases above?
Thanks,
K
KAY’S questions: As to Supertramp’s Logical song, fair use is fact specific. Important here is how much was quoted. Also, as a practical matter, whether the rights holder is pleasant or aggressive about protecting its intellectual property. See my longer discussion in response to questions about fair use and Supertramps, the Bible, a quotations book, etc.
As to the second case, publishing a list of song titles and artists, along with comments on their meaning at different times of Kay’s life, raises no copyright issues. Song titles can not be copyrighted. The artist’s names can’t be. There is certainly nothing wrong in listing them together. Discussing their relevance in Kay’s life is certainly not objectionable.
THANK YOU! Very useful and clarifies much!
Thank you very much David for your response on this. I will look up the earlier ones you mentioned as well.
Regards,
Kay
I was wonder if you happen to know the copyright issues around
creating a book of quotations. I want to put together a collection of
inspirational quotes with a certain theme. Mostly just one liners It’s not just compilation of quotes, but the quotes are used as examples. Do
you think that would fall under fair use?
Some of the quotes are from before 1923 and are therefore public domain, but othersare current. Would I have to get permission from each copyright holder of the latter because it is being sold for commercial purposes, or do you think each quote short enough for fair use? It would be for positive purposes, so the likelyhood of trouble is lowered, but would it actually fall under fair use?
Thank you for any tips you can provide.
Re: Jennifer’s question:
On May 8, 2011 I responded to a similar question about collections of brief quotations, and I hope you’ll find that response instructive.
In addition, here Jennifer’s point that the quotations are used as illustrative examples in the context of discussion would be a good point supporting fair use, because the purpose of fair use is to encourage discussion, comment, etc.
Great article!
i have 1 question, if like say the teacher purchase storybook on sale local mall bookstores and copy all the entire book and make a 22 copies then pass to all student and filed it in cabinet and uses one of the story from time to time and also he made copies for the whole class so each child can read, is it a fair use?
I am writing a book about using games to teach math. Many of the games I use are old folk games or adaptations of traditional games, so those would have no copyright problems. But I would also like to include several newer games, such as Sprouts.
My question is: Is a game like this essentially an idea, which cannot be copyrighted? Of course, I would write up the instructions in my own style, not copying from any other source. Or is the game not essentially an idea, but something else, which does fall under copyright or some other restriction? Do I need to search out the inventor of any such game (or his heirs) in order to get permission to use it?
Another question: What about a game such as Mastermind, which I assume is trademarked but is based on a much older game? My guess is that I could use a version of the older game, but I can’t call it by the popular, modern name?
I sent my book to a formatter (who is in a foreign country) who also was to provide the cover. I paid in advance. After a month I received the “start” of the work including a rough draft of the cover. I did not like the formatting done and stopped working with the person. I liked the cover concept, however, and sent it to another formatter who used it. I had the book published. A friend recently put the cover under magnification and claimed there was a watermark on the cover art. There is. I don’t know where the art came from and I presume it is a photo from an internet source. What do I do now?
Thanks Joel for getting David to write the article and answer the several related questions.
In my book I have quotes attributed to Ike Eisenhower, Confucius, Yiddish Proverb, Marcus Aurelius and Einstein. My sources have been different websites and newspaper articles. Is it safe to assume that those quotes don’t require any permissions? Sorry if I missed a similar question raised before….
Thanks!
Percy
Re: Percy’s question. Quotations from Confucius, Marcus Aurelius would not be within copyright in the original language. In theory, there could be copyrightable creativity in the translation into English, but as long as these are short quotations, I don’t think anyone would care or try to claim infringement.
Yiddish proverbs are— well, folk wit and wisdom. It’s impossible to know who originally said them or wrote them down, and it was likely so long ago that copyright would be elapsed by now. If translated into English, same comment as for M.A. and Confucius.
Eisenhower: short passages are probably no problem, especially if you are commenting on them (fair use and all that). Long passages— in theory could be a problem, in practice probably not, but it is really case-specific and I would not venture a guess unless I actually saw the passage and knew where and when it appeared and if anyone claims copyright.
Still, unless the Eisenhower quotations are big chunks, it sounds unlikely that anyone would bother Percy over the use. That is not a legal statement but a practical, business one.
There were similar questions asked in this thread earlier about compiling short quotations, and Percy and others who are interested might look at my response to that, also.
I hope this is helpful, and Happy New Year to all.
I have a good question: Do you need to get permission, say from Google or Apple, to use the word “Google” or “Apple” as the title of a book if you are not using their logo?
I found this paragraphy at Google.com regarding trademark and it seems that you don’t need to get their permission. Say you want to write a book on “SEO and Google(tm)”:
“Regarding cover art, you cannot use the Google logo (or the name ‘Google’ using our typeface) on the cover of a publicly-available book or publication without our permission.”
That’s all it says, and conveniently, there is no contact information given.
Thoughts?
{ 7 trackbacks }