Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Transforming Fair Use
View through CrossRef
In the United States, the fate of fair use, and by extension, copyright itself, hang in the balance. In recent years, courts have disagreed over fair use’s proper scope. On the one side are appellate decisions that interpret fair use broadly. While these decisions do not go so far as to suggest that every reuse is fair, they typically use the talismanic phrase “transformative use” and give it a generous and flexible interpretation. On the other side are appellate decisions that interpret fair use restrictively. While again they do not go so far as to suggest no reuse is fair, they typically either reject the transformative use rubric outright or give it a miserly construction. <br><br>In Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith, the Court largely sided with the courts that favored a narrow and restrictive view of transformative use specifically and fair use more generally. In reaching its conclusion, the Court used a variety of interpretative approaches: realism, textualism, and purposivism. This article critically re-examines each of these interpretative approaches and demonstrates that none support the Court’s reasoning and outcome. <br><br>While courts are bound by the Court’s Goldsmith decision, it is a judicial decision, not legislation. Courts should treat it as such. Each of the Court’s statements on various issue should not be treated as independently binding, but as a reflection of a unified whole, tied to the specific facts of the Goldsmith case. In particular, courts should confine the decision’s application to other instances where a commercial use that was previously licensed is now claimed as a fair use. Wendy Gordon has previously suggested that where licensing is very likely to fail, fair use should be more readily found. Goldsmith represents the opposite side of the coin: Where licensing of a commercial use is very likely to succeed, and indeed, where the copyright owner has previously licensed the precise use at issue, a court should tend to find infringement to reinforce the licensing market in place.
Title: Transforming Fair Use
Description:
In the United States, the fate of fair use, and by extension, copyright itself, hang in the balance.
In recent years, courts have disagreed over fair use’s proper scope.
On the one side are appellate decisions that interpret fair use broadly.
While these decisions do not go so far as to suggest that every reuse is fair, they typically use the talismanic phrase “transformative use” and give it a generous and flexible interpretation.
On the other side are appellate decisions that interpret fair use restrictively.
While again they do not go so far as to suggest no reuse is fair, they typically either reject the transformative use rubric outright or give it a miserly construction.
<br><br>In Andy Warhol Foundation v.
Goldsmith, the Court largely sided with the courts that favored a narrow and restrictive view of transformative use specifically and fair use more generally.
In reaching its conclusion, the Court used a variety of interpretative approaches: realism, textualism, and purposivism.
This article critically re-examines each of these interpretative approaches and demonstrates that none support the Court’s reasoning and outcome.
<br><br>While courts are bound by the Court’s Goldsmith decision, it is a judicial decision, not legislation.
Courts should treat it as such.
Each of the Court’s statements on various issue should not be treated as independently binding, but as a reflection of a unified whole, tied to the specific facts of the Goldsmith case.
In particular, courts should confine the decision’s application to other instances where a commercial use that was previously licensed is now claimed as a fair use.
Wendy Gordon has previously suggested that where licensing is very likely to fail, fair use should be more readily found.
Goldsmith represents the opposite side of the coin: Where licensing of a commercial use is very likely to succeed, and indeed, where the copyright owner has previously licensed the precise use at issue, a court should tend to find infringement to reinforce the licensing market in place.
Related Results
Administering Fair Use
Administering Fair Use
Fair use is not working. As written by Congress and applied by the courts, the fair use law fails to give individuals sufficiently clear guidance to determine in advance whether th...
A Capacity Building Program for developing FAIR skills
A Capacity Building Program for developing FAIR skills
GO FAIR is an international, bottom-up movement dedicated to adhering as closely as possible to the FAIR Guiding Principles in the implementation of data and services as outlined i...
FAIR-IMPACT
FAIR-IMPACT
In this poster we present the FAIR-IMPACT project, “Expanding FAIR solutions across EOSC”, which is funded by the European Commission Horizon Europe programme. The acronym FAIR st...
Debunking the Fair Use vs. Fair Dealing Myth: Have We Had Fair Use All Along?
Debunking the Fair Use vs. Fair Dealing Myth: Have We Had Fair Use All Along?
According to conventional wisdom, a fundamental difference exists between the American fair use doctrine and the Canadian fair dealing doctrine (or that of other Commonwealth count...
Curriculum Development for FAIR Data Stewardship
Curriculum Development for FAIR Data Stewardship
Abstract
The FAIR Guidelines attempts to make digital data Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR). To prepare FAIR data, a new data science discipl...
Testing the FAIR metrics on data catalogs
Testing the FAIR metrics on data catalogs
The introduction of the FAIR –Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable– principles has caused quite an uproar within the scientific community. Principles which, if everyone ad...
Testing the FAIR metrics on data catalogs
Testing the FAIR metrics on data catalogs
The introduction of the FAIR –Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable– principles has caused quite an uproar within the scientific community. Principles which, if everyone ad...
Features of a FAIR vocabulary
Features of a FAIR vocabulary
Abstract
Background: The FAIR Principles explicitly require the use of FAIR vocabularies, but what precisely constitutes a FAIR vocabulary remains unclear. Being able todef...

