|
Under the fair use principle, people can take and reuse part of a copyrighted book, song or movie without permission. Generally, excepts can be used if they're short and if they're part of a new artistic work, scholarly work or a parody. Noncommercial uses are generally more permissible, Olson said. "If it's for a commercial use, they do have to pay for it," Caplin said. Olson, though, said that's a flawed understanding of copyright law. "Commercial use isn't presumptively unfair," he said. He said no one watches "Midnight in Paris" as a substitute for buying "Requiem for a Nun." "The Faulkner estate's interest is not being harmed in any way," Olson said. "If anything it draws a little more interest." Caplin argued that even though the movie snippet is short, it's a key summing-up of the whole film, and that Allen took it because Faulkner said it better. "This is Mr. Faulkner's most famous quote," Caplin said. In the Northrop case, Caplin said he's not sure the heirs would have wanted Faulkner's name to be associated with an arms manufacturer. Olson said the Northrop case may be stronger, but he fears that authors are using copyright to limit the political context in which works are quoted or used. Olson said some estates are zealous about enforcing copyright, to increase revenue or limit discussions that heirs find disagreeable. The suits could just be warning shots by the estate to other users. "Part of what they could be doing is just trying to get the word out," Olson said.
[Associated
Press;
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
News | Sports | Business | Rural Review | Teaching & Learning | Home and Family | Tourism | Obituaries
Community |
Perspectives
|
Law & Courts |
Leisure Time
|
Spiritual Life |
Health & Fitness |
Teen Scene
Calendar
|
Letters to the Editor