Chilling Effects
Home Weather Reports Report Receiving a Cease and Desist Notice Search the Database Topics
Sending
Topic HomeFAQsMonitoring the legal climate for Internet activity
Chilling Effects
 Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > DMCA Safe Harbor > Notices > Cattery Owner Seeks to Remove Infringing Material (NoticeID 1769, http://chillingeffects.org/N/1769) Location: https://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1769

Cattery Owner Seeks to Remove Infringing Material

March 15, 2005

 

Sender Information:
Lollimops Himalayans
Sent by: Null
[Private]

Recipient Information:
Null
Google, Inc.


Sent via: fax
Re: Digital Millennium Copyright Act Complaint of Copyright Infringement Against www.pedi

To:[Recipient]
Fax Number [Private]
From:[Sender] [Phone]
Fax Number [Private]

Date/Time: 3.15.05
Subject: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Complaint of Copyright Infringement Against www.pedigree-cbs.org

[Phone]
Attn: [Recipient]

1. The copyrighted work at issue are emails authored by myself, posted to this website without my permission. She has also taken a photograph of me from my own website, and taken photos of my cats from my website, all without my permission. The content of her website is libelous, and in linking to it, Google is helping to promote that libel.
2. Search term: [Private]
3. Statement of Fact about [Private] of Lollimops Himalayans [Private] lives [presently] right across the street to where [Private] her best friend had a residence served with 1 warrant & was arrested....
www.pedigree-cbs.org/sofml.html - 16k - Cached - Similar pages
This page has a picture that I took from my front porch and is located on my website at http://www.geocities.com/lollimops on my grandchildren's page. It was stolen from that site and is placed here without my permission.
2. Her name, email addresses and address; [Private], [Address]; Beaumont, CA. 92223

[e-mail],
"I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law." The "response" quoted was my email, verbatim and a picture that is mine and is on my website. I did not, nor do I now, give permission for this to be reproduced in any form. Her reproduction of my email and picture does not constitute fair use under US copyright law, not having been used in part, for editorial or reporting purposes. Also see attached pages.

My name is [Private], my phone number is [Phone] and my email address is [e-mail]
Thank you
Search term used on the following pages was
Lollimops, which is my [Private] name

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have in good faith belief that each search result or message [illegible] and below


1. Cat - Feline Pine
www.whitepinevet.com. Lollimops [Private] Purchase Contract How Lollimops [Private] defends her purchase contract and says its ethical www.pedigree-cbs.org.... www.topcatsites.com/felinepine/ - 54k - Cached - Similar paqes
This has a link to a copy of my contract which was stolen by this person, [Private] and put on her site pedigree-cbs.org, without my permission;
Lollimops [Private] Purchase Contract
How Lollimops [Private] defends her purchase contract and says its ethical www.pedigree-cbs.org
2. The Complaint Station for Lollimops [Private] | The Complaint ...
The Complaint Station is the hottest complain facility! Complain today,
fill out the complaint form for fraud, scams, etc.! www.thecomplaintstation.com/.../datacgi/database.cgi/ Forum/Topic/TopiclD=2623/firstrecord=0/finalrecord=14 - 67k - Cached - Similar pages
This letter was written by me and is posted on this page without my permission; below is the letter written by me, and she acknowledges that this is so.
What [Private] had to say.... below
Original Message
From: [Private]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 7:32 PM
To: [Private]
Subject:
Wrote by [Private]
"Dear [Private]
I just tried to call you about your complaint with [Private]. I had no idea you were so upset with me. I dialed the number correctly but the lady that answered didn't want to talk to me, I hope that wasn't you.
It is so hard to get people to understand about FIP, and if you want to talk about it I will explain all that I can, I have really studied this disease in order to try to prevent it ever happening with my babies.
But please do not get involved with this person before you talk to me. She is mentally unstable, CFA knows about her and she has been banned from ever showing or registering with them. She has been stalking and harrassing me for many months now along with a few other breeders that she doesn't like.
It has been a nightmare and I would like to talk to you about it.

I know your kitty died and I am so sad for him and you, but I did the only thing I could, I offered to replace him. You also have an older cat and that may have been where the kitten contacted the corona virus that can mutate into FIP, even tho I try very hard to raise my kittens not to pick up this virus from their moms this is no guarantee either that it won't happen from here. There is no way to know for sure where your kitten picked it up.

But we have to stop pointing fingers about FIP. There is really no way to prevent it, no way to diagnose it and no way to treat it. I have been told repeatedly, that if you breed cats it is going to show up and I know that it is not going to make you feel any better either.

This person is not official, she has no authority and this is just her own vendetta site. My letter that you read was a response to a posting she did last Fri. She stated that I was in jail and that my cats had been confiscated. She made this up and when she couldn't provide the paper work to back it up she blamed a city official for mixing up my name with that of the person that was arrested last year. She has taken down that page now or rather unlinked it.

As to your reference to the shelter I was helping with, it was the person that eventually did busted but I was the one that was trying to help the cats, I was down there cleaning and bathing and scooping on my own trying to help these cats. The living conditions were horrendous and the only way I could explain it to you was that I was working at a shelter. I didn't know how else to talk about it. All of my friends were so angry at me for getting involved with this person, but I couldn't just let those cats live like that I was devastated about their living condition.

I also wonder at your reference to my "cat shack". I know that those are [Private's] words. I am embarrased that you thought that of me and my home.

[Private] if you have a problem with me, why don't you take it up with me? I would never have knowingly send out a sick kitten, please know that and I am still willing to replace him, but please discuss this with me and not her. She cannot resolve this, only you and I can. Thanks [Private]"
Himalayan & Persan Cats- Little people in kitty suits http://www.geocities.com/lollimops"
3. Rip Off Report:Lollimops Himalayan Persians Ripoff sell FIP ... Lollimops Himalayan Persians Ripoff sell FIP infected cats that
die within a few months [Private].... badbusinessbureau.com/reports/ripoffl32315.htm - 28k - Cached - Similar pages
This letter was written by me and I did not give permission for it to be sent to someone else, or posted on this site or on the site p-cbs.org.
4. Rip Off Report: Lollimops Himalayans Persians ripoff steals buyers
Lollimops Himalayans Persians ripoff steals buyers $100.00 please do NOT buy from
this [Private] [Private] California. ... He found lollimops and called Melanie.... badbusinessbureau.com/reports/ripoff132317.htm - 22k - Cached - Similar paqes
This quote on this page is attributed to me, it is inaccurate and posted here without my permission.
[Private] said "NO REFUNDS".
5. Rip Off Report:Lollimops [Private] Owner requested $100 deposit ... Lollimops [Private] Owner requested $100 deposit before seeing the cat. ... Lollimops [Private] Owner requested $100 deposit before seeing the cat.... www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff124023.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar paqes
My address and unlisted phone number are listed here without my permission.
6. Directory Listing for Animals & Pets, Cats at SearchRamp.com
Lollimop's Reputation Lollimops [Private] runs a FIP infected kitten mill for a living http://www.pedigree-cbs.org/passml.html Report this Listing.... dir.searchramp.com/A298P4-Cats.htm - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

I am not listed anywhere on this page. This is inaccurate
7. American Bad Business List - Rip off reports and bad business ... [Private] of Lollimops [Private] ripped my off of $1,300.0.... Public Rating Code for this seller! Lollimops admits she has sick kittys & shares this online wvvvv.americanbadbusinesslist.com/business/ viewtopic.php?p=33&sid=c73e109f397cb4fe899fb91 ae8e4efcc - 19k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

This listing goes nowhere.
8. Bad Business Index - MO
... that 1 minute call. Lollimops [Private] [Private] [Private], CA 92026 Business Contact: [Private]. What [Private] ... www.badbusinessindex.com/bad_businesses_mno.htm - 34k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages
I have been quoted here by [Private] and [Private] once again has put it on her site without my permission, this is not what I said.
Lollimops [Private]
[Address]
[Private], CA 92026
Business Contact: [Private]


What [Private] kitten buyer had to say about her Hi -'I bought a kitten from [Private] in February 2003. Within in two months Divine Ray of Light (Ray for short) Ray's belly was swollen out. We took him & had him tested for worms. After several vets & a few tests totaling hundreds of dollars we found out Ray had FIP. I e-mailed [Private] throughout this process. She sent a-mails acting like she didn't know what could possibly be wrong with him. When we found out he had FIP she said, 'that it must have come from our 18 year old Tabby (totally healthy always) Flash.' She told us that "out of sympathy" Ray was to replace my Himmy that had died on Christmas day of Cystitis (he was 13) that she would give me a replacement kitten after Flash had passed on. We paid her $450.00 for pet quality lilac point Himmy. He was the sweetest little baby, and he cruelly died before our eyes in an agonizing several months. He was healthy only for a month before he started to manifest symptoms. [Private] did not profess to be an expert on FIP when she was dealing with us. She told us, 'Why would I give you a replacement kitten if the FIP had come from my cattery.' Every vet we have talked to has urged us not to deal with her again. It is a terrible thing to bring little innocent babies into the wand to make them suffer. I am sad to tell you all this ..

image

FAQ: Questions and Answers

[back to notice text]


Question: What is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act?

Answer: The DMCA, as it is known, has a number of different parts. One part is the anticircumvention provisions, which make it illegal to "circumvent" a technological measure protecting access to or copying of a copyrighted work (see Anticircumvention (DMCA)). Another part gives web hosts and Internet service providers a "safe harbor" from copyright infringement claims if they implement certain notice and takedown procedures (see DMCA Safe Harbor).


[back to notice text]


Question: What are the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions?

Answer: In 1998, Congress passed the On-Line Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA) in an effort to protect service providers on the Internet from liability for the activities of its users. Codified as section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), this new law exempts on-line service providers that meet the criteria set forth in the safe harbor provisions from claims of copyright infringement made against them that result from the conduct of their customers. These safe harbor provisions are designed to shelter service providers from the infringing activities of their customers. If a service provider qualifies for the safe harbor exemption, only the individual infringing customer are liable for monetary damages; the service provider's network through which they engaged in the alleged activities is not liable.


[back to notice text]


Question: What are the notice and takedown procedures for web sites?

Answer: In order to have an allegedly infringing web site removed from a service provider's network, or to have access to an allegedly infringing website disabled, the copyright owner must provide notice to the service provider with the following information:

  • The name, address, and electronic signature of the complaining party [512(c)(3)(A)(i)]
  • The infringing materials and their Internet location [512(c)(3)(A)(ii-iii)], or if the service provider is an "information location tool" such as a search engine, the reference or link to the infringing materials [512(d)(3)].
  • Sufficient information to identify the copyrighted works [512(c)(3)(A)(iv)].
  • A statement by the owner that it has a good faith belief that there is no legal basis for the use of the materials complained of [512(c)(3)(A)(v)].
  • A statement of the accuracy of the notice and, under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on the behalf of the owner [512(c)(3)(A)(vi)].

Once notice is given to the service provider, or in circumstances where the service provider discovers the infringing material itself, it is required to expeditiously remove, or disable access to, the material. The safe harbor provisions do not require the service provider to notify the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material before it has been removed, but they do require notification after the material is removed.


[back to notice text]


Question: What are the counter-notice and put-back procedures?

Answer: In order to ensure that copyright owners do not wrongly insist on the removal of materials that actually do not infringe their copyrights, the safe harbor provisions require service providers to notify the subscribers if their materials have been removed and to provide them with an opportunity to send a written notice to the service provider stating that the material has been wrongly removed. [512(g)] If a subscriber provides a proper "counter-notice" claiming that the material does not infringe copyrights, the service provider must then promptly notify the claiming party of the individual's objection. [512(g)(2)] If the copyright owner does not bring a lawsuit in district court within 14 days, the service provider is then required to restore the material to its location on its network. [512(g)(2)(C)]

A proper counter-notice must contain the following information:

  • The subscriber's name, address, phone number and physical or electronic signature [512(g)(3)(A)]
  • Identification of the material and its location before removal [512(g)(3)(B)]
  • A statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed by mistake or misidentification [512(g)(3)(C)]
  • Subscriber consent to local federal court jurisdiction, or if overseas, to an appropriate judicial body. [512(g)(3)(D)]

If it is determined that the copyright holder misrepresented its claim regarding the infringing material, the copyright holder then becomes liable to the person harmed for any damages that resulted from the improper removal of the material. [512(f)]

See also How do I file a DMCA counter-notice?, and the counter-notification generator.


[back to notice text]


Question: What kinds of things are copyrightable?

Answer: In order for material to be copyrightable, it must be original and must be in a fixed medium.

Only material that originated with the author can support a copyright. Items from the public domain which appear in a work, as well as work borrowed from others, cannot be the subject of an infringement claim. Also, certain stock material might not be copyrightable, such as footage that indicates a location like the standard shots of San Francisco in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Also exempted are stock characters like the noisy punk rocker who gets the Vulcan death grip in Star Trek IV.

The requirement that works be in a fixed medium leaves out certain forms of expression, most notably choreography and oral performances such as speeches. For instance, if I perform a Klingon death wail in a local park, my performance is not copyrightable. However, if I film the performance, then the film is copyrightable.

Single words and short phrases are generally not protected by copyright, even when the name has been "coined" or newly-created by the mark owner. Logos that include original design elements can be protected under copyright or under trademark. Otherwise, words, phrases and titles may be protected only by trademark, however.


[back to notice text]


Question: What may be copyrighted?

Answer: In order to be copyrightable, a work must be

1. fixed in a tangible medium of expression ; and
2. original.

Copyrights do not protect ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries: they only protect physical representations. 17 U.S.C.


[back to notice text]


Question: Is linking protected by the First Amendment?

Answer: The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." The government (and states, under the Fourteenth Amendment) must meet a high level of scrutiny before restricting speech.

A hyperlinks refers to and describes the location of another Internet resource. The text of the hyperlink and the material linked to may be highly expressive. In addition, the act of linking to other websites may be likened to protected "assembly," or association with those sites.


[back to notice text]


Question: Can search engines be liable for copyright infringement by providing hyperlinks to search results?

Answer: Some Internet search engines have been getting "takedown" requests under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Section 512 (see DMCA Safe Harbor for more information). The DMCA provides a safe harbor to information location tools that comply with takedown notices, but it is not settled whether they would be liable for copyright infringement if they did not use the safe harbor. Arguably, computer-generated pages of links do not materially facilitate infringing activity or put their hosts on notice of copyright infringements.


[back to notice text]


Question: What defines a service provider under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)?

Answer: A service provider is defined as "an entity offering transmission, routing, or providing connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received" or "a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities thereof." [512(k)(1)(A-B)] This broad definition includes network services companies such as Internet service providers (ISPs), search engines, bulletin board system operators, and even auction web sites. In A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster Inc., the court refused to extend the safe harbor provisions to the Napster software program and service, leaving open the question of whether peer-to-peer networks also qualify for safe harbor protection under Section 512.

There are four major categories of network systems offered by service providers that qualify for protection under the safe harbor provisions:

  • Conduit Communications include the transmission and routing of information, such as an email or Internet service provider, which store the material only temporarily on their networks. [Sec. 512(a)]
  • System Caching refers to the temporary copies of data that are made by service providers in providing the various services that require such copying in order to transfer data. [Sec. 512(b)]
  • Storage Systems refers to services which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service or a chat room. [Sec. 512(c)]
  • Information Location Tools refer to services such as search engines, directories, or pages of recommended web sites which provide links to the allegedly infringing material. [Sec. 512(d)]


[back to notice text]


Question: Can an online service provider (OSP) be held contributorily liable for acts of trademark infringement by one of its users?

Answer: Under section 512(c) of the DMCA an OSP will not be held liable for instances of copyright infringement so long as the OSP satisfies certain statutory requirements. (See What are the DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions?.) However, there is no equivalent legislation pertaining to trademark infringement, and given the paucity of caselaw concerning liability of OSPs in such instances, it remains an open question as to whether or not an OSP could, or should, be held liable for acts of trademark infringement by its users.

In trademark law contributory liability exists when a manufacturer or distributor intentionally induces another party to infringe a valid trademark, or when it continues to supply products to a party that it knows, or has reason to know, is using the products to engage in trademark infringement. Inwood Laboratories v. Ives Laboratories, 456 U.S. 844 (1982). (See What is contributory trademark infringement?.)

Lower courts have since disagreed somewhat over what exactly satisfies the


[back to notice text]


Question: What does a service provider have to do in order to qualify for safe harbor protection?

Answer: In addition to informing its customers of its policies (discussed above), a service provider must follow the proper notice and takedown procedures (discussed above) and also meet several other requirements in order to qualify for exemption under the safe harbor provisions.

In order to facilitate the notification process in cases of infringement, ISPs which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service, must designate an agent that will receive the notices from copyright owners that its network contains material which infringes their intellectual property rights. The service provider must then notify the Copyright Office of the agent's name and address and make that information publicly available on its web site. [512(c)(2)]

Finally, the service provider must not have knowledge that the material or activity is infringing or of the fact that the infringing material exists on its network. [512(c)(1)(A)], [512(d)(1)(A)]. If it does discover such material before being contacted by the copyright owners, it is instructed to remove, or disable access to, the material itself. [512(c)(1)(A)(iii)], [512(d)(1)(C)]. The service provider must not gain any financial benefit that is attributable to the infringing material. [512(c)(1)(B)], [512(d)(2)].


[back to notice text]


Question: What is libel?

Answer: Libel is a false statement of fact expressed in a fixed medium, usually writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast. See What are the elements of a defamation claim?


[back to notice text]


Question: What are the elements of a defamation claim?

Answer: The party making a defamation claim (plaintiff) must ordinarily prove four elements:

  1. a publication to one other than the person defamed;
  2. a false statement of fact;
  3. that is understood as
  4. a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
    b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
  5. If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.


[back to notice text]


Question: Can an ISP or the host of the message board or chat room be held liable for
defamatory of libelous statements made by others on the message board?

Answer: Not in the United States. Under 47 U.S.C. sec. 230(c)(1) (CDA Sec. 230): "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." This provision has been uniformly interpreted by the Courts to provide complete protection against defamation or libel claims made against an ISP, message board or chat room where the statements are made by third parties. Note that this immunity does not extend to claims made under intellectual property laws.


[back to notice text]


Question: Can I post a copyrighted image on my website?

Answer: Maybe. In order to determine whether you can post a copyrighted image on your website, a court would apply the four factor fair use analysis.

First, it is important to determine the purpose and character of the use. If the use is commercial in nature, rather than for nonprofit education purposes, it less likely to be considered a fair use. To determine if it is commercial, a court would consider whether the use was exploitative and for direct profit, or if instead any commercial character was incidental. Also, if the use is transformative and for a different purpose than the original work, it is more likely the first factor will weigh in favor of finding a fair use. For example, in Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, the court found that posting "thumbnail" images on a website was a fair use because such images served a different purpose than the original images.

Second, the court would consider the nature of the copyrighted work. The reproduction of a predominantly factual work is more likely to be considred a fair use than the reproduction of a highly creative one.

Third, it is important to consider the amount and substantiality of the portion of the copyrighted image used. This inquiry looks at not only the quantity, but also on the expressive value, of the portion used. If a large amount of the original image is copied, or if the portion copied is substantially significant to the work as a whole, it is less likely the court will find such copying to be a fair use.

Finally, the most important factor in this inquiry is the effect of the use on the potential market for the copyright owner's work. If posting the image on the website leads to a reduction in sales of the copyrighted work or discourages people from accessing the copyright owner's website, a court is more likely to find that the use is not fair and has an adverse impact on the copyright owner's market.

These four factors will be evaluated by a court in a factual inquiry to determine whether the posting of the image would constitute a fair use.


[back to notice text]


Question: Can a copyright owner find out the identity of the individual responsible for the allegedly infringing material?

Answer: The safe harbor provisions permit a copyright owner to subpoena the identity of the individual allegedly responsible for the infringing activities. [512(h)] Such a subpoena is granted on the condition that the information about the individual's identity will only be used in relation to the protection of the intellectual property rights of the copyright owner. [512(h)(2)(C)]

The DMCA subpoena provision does not apply to requests for the identities of users of ISP conduit 512(a) services, but only to users of hosting or linking, for which a takedown may be sent under 512(c)(3)(A). Thus DMCA subpoenas cannot be used to find the identities of users engaged in peer-to-peer filesharing. Recording Industry Assoc. of America v. Verizon Internet Svcs., Inc.


[back to notice text]


Question: Isn't the domain name registration process "first come first served"?

Answer: In .com, .org and .net, which are "open" to any kind of registrant, the policy is first-come, first-served, as long as you have registered and used the domain name in good faith or have legitimate interests in the domain name. However, you have no right to violate trademark law, or ignore your Registration Agreement, or engage in cybersquatting just because you registered the name first.

Furthermore, in the newer domains such as .biz and .name, there are additional registration requirements that must be met because some of these domains are restricted. Trademark owners may also have advance registration rights. Check individual registry requirements. See list of generic top-level domain registries at http://www.internic.net/faqs/new-tlds.html.


[back to notice text]


Question: What kinds of things are copyrightable?

Answer: In order for material to be copyrightable, it must be original and must be in a fixed medium.

Only material that originated with the author can support a copyright. Items from the public domain which appear in a work, as well as work borrowed from others, cannot be the subject of an infringement claim. Also, certain stock material might not be copyrightable, such as footage that indicates a location like the standard shots of San Francisco in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home. Also exempted are stock characters like the noisy punk rocker who gets the Vulcan death grip in Star Trek IV.

The requirement that works be in a fixed medium leaves out certain forms of expression, most notably choreography and oral performances such as speeches. For instance, if I perform a Klingon death wail in a local park, my performance is not copyrightable. However, if I film the performance, then the film is copyrightable.

Single words and short phrases are generally not protected by copyright, even when the name has been "coined" or newly-created by the mark owner. Logos that include original design elements can be protected under copyright or under trademark. Otherwise, words, phrases and titles may be protected only by trademark, however.


[back to notice text]


Question: What may be copyrighted?

Answer: In order to be copyrightable, a work must be

1. fixed in a tangible medium of expression ; and
2. original.

Copyrights do not protect ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries: they only protect physical representations. 17 U.S.C.


[back to notice text]


Question: What constitutes copyright infringement?

Answer: Subject to certain defenses, it is copyright infringement for someone other than the author to do the following without the author's permission:

1. reproduce (copy) the work;

2. create a new work derived from the original work (for example, by translating the work into a new language, by copying and distorting the image, or by transferring the work into a new medium of expression);

3. sell or give away the work, or a copy of the work, for the first time (but once the author has done so, the right to sell or give away the item is transferred to the new owner. This is known as the "first sale" doctrine: once a copyright owner has sold or given away the work or a copy of it, the recipient or purchaser may do as she pleases with what she posesses.) 17 U.S.C. ?109(a);

4. perform or display the work in public without permission from the copyright owner. 17 U.S.C. ?106. It is also copyright infringement to violate the "moral rights" of an author as defined by 17 U.S.C. 106A. Moral rights are discussed here.


[back to notice text]


Question: Who may hold a copyright?

Answer: A copyright ordinarily vests in the creator or creators of a work (known as the author(s)), and is inherited as ordinary property. Copyrights are freely transferrable as property, at the discretion of the owner. 17 U.S.C.


[back to notice text]


Question: Where is the fair use doctrine codified?

Answer: The fair use doctrine was originally a judge-made doctrine embodied in case law. See Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841). Congress later codified it at Title 17 of the United States Code, Section 107.

This section provides:

Section 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A [setting forth copyright owners' exclusive rights and visual artists' artistic rights], 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


[back to notice text]


Question: What does "under penalty of perjury" mean?

Answer: Law.com offers a good definition of perjury: "Perjury is the the crime of intentionally lying after being duly sworn (to tell the truth) by a notary public, court clerk or other official. This false statement may be made in testimony in court, administrative hearings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, as well as by signing or acknowledging a written legal document (such as affidavit, declaration under penalty of perjury, deed, license application, tax return) known to contain false information. Although it is a crime, prosecutions for perjury are rare, because a defendant will argue he/she merely made a mistake or misunderstood."


Topic maintained by Chilling Effects

Chilling Effects Clearinghouse - www.chillingeffects.org
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse page printed from: https://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1769
disclaimer / privacy / about us & contacts