Posts by Mark Harris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
In New Zealand, fair dealing includes some copying for private study, research, criticism, review, and news reporting. Sections 42 and 43 of the Copyright Act 1994 set out the types of copying that qualify. The criteria are perhaps most similar to those applying in the UK, although commercial research can still count as fair dealing in New Zealand. Incidental copying, while allowed, is not defined as "fair dealing" under the Act. As in Canada, fair dealing is not an infringement of copyright.
The factors determining whether copying for research or private study is judged to be fair dealing in New Zealand are its purpose, its effect on the potential market or value of the work copied, the nature of the work, the amount copied in relation to the whole work, and whether or not the work could have been obtained in a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price.
The wikipedia article quoted above.
Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor balancing test. The term "fair use" originated in the United States, but has been added to Israeli law as well; a similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
As I understand it, the difference is incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work and this is what Fairey and his lawyers are arguing permits his reworking of the photograph.
The Copyright Act 1994 says:
42 Criticism, review, and news reporting
(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purposes of criticism or re
view, of that or another work or of a performance of a work,
does not infringe copyright in the work if such fair dealing is
accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.
(2) Fair dealing with a work for the purposes of reporting current
events by means of a sound recording, film, broadcast, or cable
programme does not infringe copyright in the work.
(3) Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the
purposes of reporting current events by any means other than
those referred to in subsection (2) of this section does not in
fringe copyright in the work if such fair dealing is accompan
ied by a sufficient acknowledgement.43 Research or private study
(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purposes of research or private
study does not infringe copyright in the work.
(2) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that fair deal
ing with a published edition for the purposes of research or
private study does not infringe copyright in either the typo
graphical arrangement of the edition or any literary, dramatic,
musical, or artistic work or part of a work in the edition.
(3) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (1) of this sec
tion, whether copying, by means of a reprographic process or
by any other means, constitutes fair dealing for the purposes
of research or private study, a court shall have regard to—
(a) The purpose of the copying; and
(b) The nature of the work copied; and
(c) Whether the work could have been obtained within a
reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price; and
(d) The effect of the copying on the potential market for, or
value of, the work; and
(e) Where part of a work is copied, the amount and substan
tiality of the part copied taken in relation to the whole
work.
(4) Nothing in this section authorises the making of more than one
copy of the same work, or the same part of a work, on any one
occasion.which does not permit, for example, use of the original work in a parody (the US 1st Amendment is usually held to allow that and there was a Bill in preparation at MED before the change in government - I'm not sure where that's at) or as a base for a derivative work, without the copyright holder's express consent. It certainly does not permit republication.
I think the UK is similar, and that's what LBC was using to suppress Goldacre's republishing of the audio.
Essentially, the NZ law only allows minimal copying for private research purposes and study.
That clearer? ;-)
-
Dear Ben
Now that was an ad hominem attack. But I forgive you
Bye
~mark
-
No, it wasn't, Ben. You need to get over yourself
-
Fair Users / Fair Dealers (whatever)
Don't confuse the two - they are not the same thing.
IMHO, fair use is a better concept, covering transformative and derivate works. Fair dealing is a relic of colonialism (Thanks, England) and is prevalent in Commonwealth countries. It does not cover reuse at all, only copying. From Wikipedia:
In New Zealand, fair dealing includes some copying for private study, research, criticism, review, and news reporting. Sections 42 and 43 of the Copyright Act 1994 set out the types of copying that qualify. The criteria are perhaps most similar to those applying in the UK, although commercial research can still count as fair dealing in New Zealand. Incidental copying, while allowed, is not defined as "fair dealing" under the Act. As in Canada, fair dealing is not an infringement of copyright.
The factors determining whether copying for research or private study is judged to be fair dealing in New Zealand are its purpose, its effect on the potential market or value of the work copied, the nature of the work, the amount copied in relation to the whole work, and whether or not the work could have been obtained in a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing#Fair_dealing_in_New_Zealand
-
one last time
That would be good.
-
Paul
Actually, I did read that the other day. But surely you weren't trying to compete with copyright threads?!? -
Interesting.
"Intellectual Property Absolutist" - I like it! -
Actually, I was thinking of Gio and Emma, but if that's how you roll, patrinfikulo....
-
But the solution with that guy is clearly to just ask him to take it down, as per his offer on the page
Ariel's female, I believe
-
The $500 thing is in the AMCOS Constitution as well. That's actually interesting reading.
38. On a poll each Full Member shall be entitled to the number of votes ascertained as follows:
(a) The votes of each Full Member shall be based upon the total amount properly allocated to him by the Society during the preceding financial year as his share of monies collected by the Society in respect of the exercise of the Mechanical Reproduction Right assigned or licensed to the Society in accordance with these Articles. The total amount so allocated is hereinafter referred to as the “member’s earnings”.
(b) Every Full Member shall have one vote plus one additional vote for each complete $500 of such member’s earnings during the preceding financial year.(c) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) and (b) above, no Full Member shall be entitled to more than fifteen per centum of the total votes available to all Full Members who are entitled to attend and vote at general meetings of the Society.
15% is quite a lot of vote.
They also say you can't vote if you haven't earned anything in 2 consecutive years.