In a message dated 9/17/2008 5:30:16 PM Pacific Daylight Time, mark@formonelane.net writes:
There was a case about two years ago --- my, how time flies! --- where a Wikipedian had written a mutli-sub-page retelling of the story of 2001: A Space Oddysey, interspersed with analysis of the film's themes and the significance of its special effects. Not only did it go into incredible depth of analysis, it also re-told the entire story (quoting every line of dialogue, describing of every action). There was nothing (apart from the spectacle of Kubrick's direction, of course) that could be gained from watching the film that one wouldn't also get from reading the articles.
*That's* a copyright infringement.>>
-------------------------- Yes and no. "quoting every line of dialogue" of course *copies* the script. The script itself is a copyrightable item, independently of the film and is so copyright just by virtue of its existence in tangible media. I'm sure everyone agrees with that.
It's your opinion that this multi-sub-page analysis was a copyright infringement, but there is a wide exception to "copying in its entirely" at least under US Copyright Law, if the purpose and actual result is a critique of that work. Personally I would not suggest people try to exercise that particular part of US Copyright Law, as it's almost always entirely unnecessary to copy the *entire* script merely to critique it. However, for example, with images, you almost always need to present the entire image in order to satisfactorily acquaint your audience with it, in order to present your criticism.
Will Johnson
**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com. (http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)
On Sep 17, 2008, at 8:52 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Yes and no. "quoting every line of dialogue" of course *copies* the script. The script itself is a copyrightable item, independently of the film and is so copyright just by virtue of its existence in tangible media. I'm sure everyone agrees with that.
It's your opinion that this multi-sub-page analysis was a copyright infringement, but there is a wide exception to "copying in its entirely" at least under US Copyright Law, if the purpose and actual result is a critique of that work. Personally I would not suggest people try to exercise that particular part of US Copyright Law, as it's almost always entirely unnecessary to copy the *entire* script merely to critique it. However, for example, with images, you almost always need to present the entire image in order to satisfactorily acquaint your audience with it, in order to present your criticism.
There is a very famous debate between Jacques Derrida and John Searle, for instance, in which something like this happened. As one of Derrida's major points in the essay has to do with the nature of quotation and its relationship to the original meaning, the essay quotes Searle's essay extensively. Sufficiently extensively that virtually the entire thing is quoted somewhere or other in Derrida's (very, very long) essay. Including the copyright statement, which Derrida quotes three times.
Which is to say that the "transformative" aspect of fair use is a very, very important one.
-Phil