Re: Mass-photocopying stuff for research/teaching (Fair Use)

[Patti <pkv1@erols.com>]

   Regarding your post on "Fair Use" confusion, remember that here, the 
court emphasized that this ruling was applicable to the specific facts at 
hand (Chickering's 8 copies).  Here the researcher was employed by a 
for-profit entity (Texaco) and there is a process of payment to the 
publisher for "piecemeal" photo-copy use by such a large (400) researcher 
base.

   Regarding not-for-profit/educational institutions, the law clearly 
excepts classroom teaching and related educational uses from payment. In 
full, 17 U.S.C. § 107 allows the fair use of a copyrighted work, for 
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including 
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research.

    In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is 
a fair use, the court will consider: (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 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. The fact that a work is unpublished shall 
not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon 
consideration of all the above factors".

Patricia Kane-Vanni, Esq.
Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004
pkv1@erols.com or paleopatti@hotmail.com
http://groups.msn.com/DinosaurandFossilDigs

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Phil Bigelow" <bigelowp@juno.com>
To: <dinosaur@usc.edu>
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 2:30 PM
Subject: Mass-photocopying stuff for research/teaching (Fair Use)


> Dinophiles,
> Photocopying science journal articles for educational purposes
> (supposably falling under Copyright law's "Fair Use" provision) is
> topical to the members of the DML (I would *love* to see Mickey M.'s
> photocopy collection on theropods!), so I would appreciate yooz all's
> insight on this matter (which is quoted below my post).  This subject may
> also be of relevance to any professors on the DML list who hand out many
> photocopies of articles to their students in class (e.g., "mass
> copying").
>
> To summarize the legal case, a researcher at Texaco, Inc. (Donald H.
> Chickering PhD) photocopied only eight (8) articles out of an American
> Geophysical Union (AGU) journal for his personal use.  AGU then sued his
> employer, Texaco, for violating Copyright law.  Frankly, the whole issue
> is confusing to me.  Does AGU seriously expect all 400 Texaco researchers
> to subscribe to its journal?  Failing that, does AGU seriously expect
> Texaco's researchers to send AGU money in the mail, piecemeal, every time
> a researcher needs a reprint?  More importantly, did AGU lose business
> because of Dr. Chickering's actions?  Anyway, read the following post:
>
> <pb> (clueless and rapidly losing ground)
> --
>
>
> Forwarded from an ancient coin collector's mailing list:
>
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 14:29:21 -0000 "esnible" <esnible@acm.org> writes:
>
> > The case that seems most related to my argument with Reid is
> > AMERICAN
> > GEOPHYSICAL UNION v. TEXACO.  [
> > http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/60_F3d_913.htm ].
> >
> > I'll summarize.
> >
> >   Texaco's library maintains three subscriptions to "The Journal of
> > Catalysis"
> >   Monthly.  Issues of "Catalysis" run ~200 pages and have 20-25
> > articles
> >   Dr. Donald H. Chickering photocopied eight articles from the
> > journal.
> >   Chickering believed data from these articles would facilitate his
> > research.
> >   Chickering's copying was NOT FAIR USE.
> >
> > In this case it was worthwhile for the journal publisher to sue
> > because Texaco had 400 other scientists doing the same thing and
> > there
> > was an agreement that the finding for Chickering would apply to all
> > of
> > them.