True, steve. I think I worded my second-to-the-last sentence a little awkwardly.
You are right that asking the copyright holder for permission is always a wise first step, to ensure against a lawsuit. However, permission is not always needed, not always possible to get, or is not always granted. If permission has not been obtained, for whatever reason, it would then be wise to have an attorney review your proposed use prior to plunging ahead.
For an example (although not necessarily a
good example
): If I wanted to use material from a novel as a way to illustrate that the author of the novel has a poor grasp of the English language, the novelist may not give me permission to use his copyrighted words (especially if I am known for writing scathing reviews). My use of the material for a book review or for a commentary on the author, however, could be permissible (and usually is permissible) under the copyright law (as fair use). An IP attorney could give me an idea of how much of the material is too much (an entire chapter would probably be too much) and how much a court is liable to consider fair in case I am sued over the use (a paragraph may be safe to use).
Using two minutes out of a three hour news documentary (for a review of the documentary) would be judged differently than using two minutes out of a two-minute five-second news broadcast (for the express purpose of bringing viewers to your website to see the news).
But, of course, it depends, as it always does in law, on all of the facts and particulars involved. You are right, though, that getting permission to use the material avoids the risk of a lawsuit.
06-22-2009, 01:56 PM
Linear Mode
