Replies

Fair Use The pertinent provision of the copyright statute re fair use provides:

§107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair Use "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, 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 -
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

It is very hard, almost impossible to quantify factor # 3. One commentator put it this way:

"The third factor looks at the amount and substantiality of the copying in relation to the work as a whole. However, the critical determination is whether the quality and value of the materials used are reasonable in relation to the purpose of copying. This is not a pure ratio test in that using a whole work may be fair use in some circumstances, whereas using a tiny fraction of a work not qualify for fair use in other circumstances. "Therefore, the quantity, as well as the quality and importance, of the copied material must be considered. Some Justices have looked to see that "no more was taken than was necessary" to achieve the purpose for which the materials were copied."

Understood, but not applicable. What Jeff Head is doing is publishing, not "fair use". He's collecting and redisributing a significant quantity of copyrighted material, not for particular discussion (say, to discuss whether the second explosion required conspiratorial enhancement) nor for very limited distribution (say, to students in a class), but instead is publishing many clearly copyrighted works to an audience of 100,000+. Wherever the line was, he crossed it.

Comparable to my experience with "the Elian snatch photos": I took the 7 snatch photos, made an animated .GIF (greater impact than the static photos), and put it on my web site with "fair use" intent - I did it for my amusement and the edification of the few visitors to my site. Drudge Report discovered the animation and linked to it, changing my intended "fair use" distribution of ~50 people to a "copyright infringement" distribution of ~50,000 people. Likewise with Jeff Head's site: he assembled it for his own amusement and a few friends, but it is rapidly expanding to hundreds of thousands of viewers - not "fair use".

Argue the point if you like. Jeff Head probably does not want to fight it in court, and I predict he will have to if he does not take it down soon. Associated Press et al must defend their intellectual property or lose it.