While I was familiar with the Fair Use principle, I found it very helpful to use the link to the Stanford web site, http://fairuse.stanford.edu. It really clarified a lot of points. The most interesting thing I found was that there is not a concrete definition. The law leaves a lot of interpretation for the courts in deciding what is a violation and what is not. This is quite a double-edged sword. On one hand, you could be well within the parameters of fair usage. On the other, you could very well be in violation. The problem is, you will only find out after going to court.
To be on safer ground, you should avoid using any work unless you are presenting a commentary or criticism. The safest ground of all seems to be use as a parody. There is a wide latitude available when it comes to parody. Because you have to, in a sense, recreate the work to parody it, the court would allow more use than in any other instance. This can be seen easily on any of the late night talk shows, who seem to push the envelope in their parodies.
This all being said, there is one thing that you can count on for sure. That is, it will be expensive no matter which side of the law you end up on. You will need to pay lawyer fees no matter if you win or lose. But, and not such a big but, if you lose, you will be responsible for damages. That expense alone is enough to make one not venture into the murky waters of Fair Use.
No comments:
Post a Comment