COPYRIGHT BASICS
by B. Douglas Robbins†
I.
INTRODUCTION
In this paper we discuss the fundamentals of copyright law: what sort of works are
protected by copyright, what sort of works are not protected, how copyright protection operates,
and what the consequences are for copyright infringement.
II.
COPYRIGHT BASICS
A.
Elements of Copyright
Copyright exists in any (1) “original works of authorship” (2) “fixed in any tangible
medium” (3) which “can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated.”1 Copyright
protects “literary works” like novels, poetry, or short stories, “musical works,” like record
albums of rock music, tapes of classical music, CDs of movie soundtracks, or mp3s of hip hop
recordings, “dramatic works,” like plays and musicals, “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works”
like fine oil paintings, bronze cast sculptures, comic books, printed posters, or photographs,
“motion pictures” like those on film, digital video, or DVD, and “architectural works” such as
the blueprints to San Francisco’s Transamerica Pyramid.2
In addition, to be “copyrightable” (an item that can be protected by under copyright law)
the work must be original—that is, independently created by the author. An author’s creation
can be somewhat similar to existing works, or even lacking in quality, ingenuity, or aesthetic
merit, as long as the author toils, without copying from someone else, to create something
different or new.
Finally, to receive copyright protection, a work must be the result of at least some
creative effort on the part of its author.3 The work need not exhibit much creativity: “To be
sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice.”4 For
example, the Supreme Court found that the alphabetical listing of names telephone numbers and
addresses as located in a telephone book’s white pages did not exhibit sufficient creativity to be
†
B. Douglas Robbins is Chair of the Media Law Group at Wood Robbins LLP in San Francisco,
California, representing clients who buy sell, lease, create, manage, steal, or plagiarize film, video, art, and media.
See Wood Robbins, LLP, Splash Screen, http://www.woodrobbins.com (last visited June 2012). Mr. Robbins holds
a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and an A.B. from the University of California, Berkeley.
Mr. Robbins can be contacted at [email protected].
1
17 U.S.C. § 102(a).
2
Id. § 102(a)(1)-(8).
3
See Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991); see also Dennis S. Karjala, Copyright
and Creativity, 15 UCLA ENT. L. REV. 169 (2008) (discussing the creative element and arguing it is problematic as
a requirement of copyright because it can result in “market failure”).
4
Feist Publ’ns, Inc. 499 U.S. at 345.
Page 1 of 10
copyrightable.5 And since the white pages are not copyrightable, you or anyone else can copy
them, without penalty, under the Copyright Act.
B.
Copyright Rights
The Copyright Act gives to the copyright holder certain special rights over her work that
no one else in the world has. Conversely, anyone other than the copyright holder who tries to
use these rights without permission is infringing the copyright. Those rights are: (1) the right to
make a copy, (2) the right to make a derivative work, (3) the right to distribute the work to the
public, and (4) the right to put on a public performance of the work.6 Only the copyright holder
can do these things. If other people do these things without the copyright holder’s permission,
they commit copyright infringement—believe it or not.
Make a Copy. The right to make a copy is as mundane as taking the work to a
photocopy shop and running off a copy. While running off a copy for your own personal use
does not violate copyright, something as simple as copying a song from iTunes to give to your
girlfriend, even if you charge no money,7 breaks the law. As a practical matter it is difficult, if
not impossible, for the copyright holder to keep track of every person who gives a mix-CD to
their girlfriend, and the damages at stake may be minimal, but this is, technically, a violation of
copyright law.
5
Id. at 362 (“In preparing its white pages, Rural simply takes the data provided by its subscribers and lists
it alphabetically by surname. The end product is a garden-variety white pages directory, devoid of even the slightest
trace of creativity.”).
6
The full text of the statute sets out the following rights:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare
derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the
copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or
lending; (4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and
motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; (5) in the
case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic,
or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work,
to display the copyrighted work publicly; and (6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the
copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
17 U.S.C. § 106. Note that the last two rights “don’t really apply to filmmakers” and in the opinion of at
least one scholar “don’t amount to much.” MICHAEL C. DONALDSON, CLEARANCE & COPYRIGHT, 8-9 (3d ed. 2008).
7
There are a number of myths surrounding copyright law. One of them is that all sorts of copying is
allowed as long as the copier makes no profit. This is untrue. One popular site discussing the top ten copyright
myths, puts this particular myth at number two. Brad Tempelton, 10 Big Myths About Copyright Explained,
http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html (last visited July 11, 2010).
Page 2 of 10
Derivative Work. A derivative work is a work based on a
previous work. Sequels are a good example. The James Bond
franchise is a jealous guardian of its rights. No one may make a 007
movie without the rights-holder’s permission. Even making a
commercial with similar James Bond-like elements—similar
characters, similar themes, similar plots, similar mood, etc.—may be
considered derivative.8 Likewise, George Lucas controls the
exclusive right to make or license Star Wars sequels, Star Wars
novels, Star Wars lunchboxes, and Star Wars books on tape. And if
you write a movie treatment for the next Rocky movie without
Sylvester Stallone’s permission, that treatment can be freely copied
by the Rocky franchise. Why? Because the treatment is a
derivative work and, as such, is not only uncopyrightable, but is
actually copyright infringement.9
Distribution. Only the copyright holder can distribute the
work to the public. This means the right to sell, disseminate, give
away, or otherwise make the work available to others.
Poster, Rocky, Copyright ©
1976 by United Artists
Corp.
Public Performance. Only the copyright holder has the right to publically perform the
work. Public performances not only include performances of plays, but also the public playing
of music (either live or from a music CD), public viewing of a DVD movie, or the public reading
of a book. Playing these works at private parties to which the public is not invited and for which
admission is not charged is permitted. But if your fraternity holds a party, open to the public,
and plays dance music from CDs without a license, this is a technical violation of the copyright
act. Again, as a practical matter, it is difficult to enforce this sort of prohibition, and few rightsholders have any interest in doing so—but there are always rare exceptions.
C.
Length of the Copyright
Copyright rights run for the life of the author plus 70 more years. If a corporation is the
author then the copyright lasts for 95 years from the day the work was published or 120 years
from the day it was created, whichever time period lapses first.10 This is really an extraordinary
length of time. It means that any work created in your lifetime, will, in all likelihood, will be
protected by copyright, and unavailable to you or anyone else (except the author), for use or
copying, until after you are dead and gone. This regime seems to conflict with the ultimate goal
of copyright which is to encourage, not discourage, creativity—but there you have it.11
8
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 900 F. Supp. 1287, (C.D. Cal. 1995).
Anderson v. Stallone, 11 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161, 1167 (C.D. Cal. 1989) (“This Court has determined that
Anderson's treatment is an unauthorized derivative work. Thus, Anderson has infringed upon Stallone’s
copyright.”).
10
17 U.S.C. § 302.
11
It is eminently unlikely that the quantity or quality of copyrighted work has increased by any measurable
magnitude due to the fact that copyright has been lengthened from 28 years to life-plus-70-years. Ask any serious
artist if, hypothetically, knowing the copyright term only lasts 28 years instead of life-plus-70, she would be inclined
to thereafter make fewer works or works of lower quality. Most artists are unaware of the length of the copyright
term in the first place. And many great artists worked under much weaker or nonexistent copyright regimes. Think
9
Page 3 of 10
When a work becomes available for use without permission from a copyright owner, it is
said to be “in the public domain.” Most works enter the public domain because their copyrights
have expired.
D.
Remedies for Infringement
If an infringer violates the rights of a copyright owner, the owner’s remedies include: (1)
injunctions to prevent further violations or destruction of any and all media containing the
infringing work,12 (2) actual damages compensating the rights holder for the loss,13 (3) an award
of statutory damages, “in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers
just,”14 (4) up to $150,000 in statutory damages in cases which result from a rights holder having
to prove and a court having to adjudicate that the infringement was willful,15 (5) “full costs,”16
(6) and, at the court’s discretion, an award of “reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.”17
An infringer is also subject to criminal prosecution by the United States Attorney for
willful infringement.18
E.
What Copyright Does Not Protect
There are all kinds of works in certain subject or use categories that copyright will not
protect. These “uncopyrightable” works can be freely copied and exploited by everyone.19
of J.D. Salinger, Walt Disney, William Shakespeare, or Aristotle. Do we really believe that Shakespeare held back
the sequel to Macbeth because he thought the copyright regime was too stingy? How about Aristotle?
Moreover, patents, by contrast, only run for some 20 years. If the term of protection is supposed to
incentivize creation then we would expect longer, not shorter, patent terms. After all, is the discovery of the polio
vaccine, or a similar medicine, really less important than persuading movie-makers to produce the next Avatar in
3D? In this vein, it is difficult to imagine any creator or inventor deciding to not pursue her next project because the
copyright term (or the patent term for that matter) only ran for the next 28, 38, or 48 years. But when a term runs
longer than the life of the author, it begins to look more like a regime designed to foster wealth inheritance, not
creativity. There are significant penalties the society pays for locking up culture in this way. Wealth inheritance for
the few seems like a petty and squalid trade-off.
12
17 U.S.C. §§ 502, 503.
13
The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result
of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and
are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer’s profits,
the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and the
infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable
to factors other than the copyrighted work.
17 U.S.C. § 504(a)(1).
14
Id. § 504(c)(1).
15
Id. § 504(c)(2).
16
Id. § 505.
17
Id. § 505.
18
Id. § 506.
19
Note, some work or portions of work can be freely copied not because the work is not (or was not)
copyrightable, but rather because (1) the work is in the public domain, or (2) the work or portions of the work is
subject to fair use. Neither the fair use exception nor the public domain doctrine is discussed here.
Page 4 of 10
1.
Ideas
Copyright does not protect ideas. Copyright shelters only fixed, original and creative
expression. It does not protect the ideas upon which the expression is based. For example,
copyright may protect Star Wars, the movie, but it cannot protect the more general idea of a farm
boy from outer space who goes on a hero’s quest to rescue a princess and save a planet from
annihilation.
While an idea itself is not eligible for copyright protection, a particular expression of an
idea might be eligible.20 Although the distinction between an idea and an expression thereof is
imprecise, numerous Ninth Circuit cases illustrate the distinction’s application. For example, in
discussing claims by Apple Computer that Microsoft infringed on Apple’s copyrights for design
of computer interfaces, the Ninth Circuit held that many elements of the interface were ideas not
subject to copyright protection, including “the idea of a graphical user interface, or the idea of a
desktop metaphor” for such an interface, “use of windows to display multiple images on the
computer screen and to facilitate user interaction with the information contained in the windows;
iconic representation of familiar objects from the office environment; manipulation of icons to
convey instructions and to control operation of the computer; use of menus to store information
or computer functions in a place that is convenient to reach, but saves screen space for other
images; and opening and closing of objects as a means of retrieving, transferring and storing
information.”21
In a later case concerning a guide to coin prices, the Ninth Circuit explained that an
author cannot protect
[the] idea of creating a wholesale price guide, but [the author] can use the
copyright laws to protect its idea of what those prices are. Drawing this line
preserves the balance between competition and protection: it allows [the author's]
competitors to create their own price guides and thus furthers competition, but
protects [the author's] creation, thus giving it an incentive to create such a guide.22
In a third illustration of the idea/expression distinction, in the context of examining a
television show demonstrating magic tricks, the Ninth Circuit explained that “while similarities
in tangible expressive elements . . . are pertinent to our analysis, the mere fact that both The
Mystery Magician and the Specials reveal the secrets behind magic tricks does not by itself
constitute infringement.”23
2.
Facts and Events
Similarly, copyright does not protect facts and events: news facts, historical facts, even
new discoveries in the sciences are not protected by copyright.24
20
Cavalier v. Random House, Inc., 297 F.3d 815, 823 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing 17 U.S.C. § 102(b)).
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435, 1443-44 (9th Cir. 1994).
22
CDN Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256, 1262 (9th Cir.1999).
23
Rice v. Fox Broad. Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1175 (9th Cir. 2003).
24
See Feist Publ’ns., Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 344 (1991) (“[F]acts are not copyrightable .
. . [while] compilations of facts generally are.”).
21
Page 5 of 10
3.
Lacking in Originality
Copyright might not affix to work lacking the requisite display of originality. A work
that too closely mimics the structures of nature may not exhibit enough originality to be
copyrightable.25 Although it is possible for copyright to imbue in work that depicts live
animals,26 “the scope of copyright protection in such works is narrow.”27 As the 9th Circuit has
explained:
Nature gives us ideas of animals in their natural surroundings: an eagle with
talons extended to snatch a mouse; a grizzly bear clutching a salmon between its
teeth; a butterfly emerging from its cocoon; a wolf howling at the full moon; a
jellyfish swimming through tropical waters. These ideas, first expressed by
nature, are the common heritage of humankind, and no artist may use copyright
law to prevent others from depicting them.28
4.
De Minimis Use
The less you take, the more likely that your copying will be excused as a fair use.29 In
some cases, the amount of material copied is so small, “de minimis,” that the court permits it
without even conducting a fair use analysis. For example, in the motion picture Seven, several
copyrighted photographs appeared in the film, prompting the copyright owner of the photographs
to sue the producer of the movie. The court held that the photos “appear fleetingly and are
25
See Satava v. Lowry, 323 F.3d 805, 810-11 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding no copyright protection for glass in
glass sculpture of a jellyfish because of an insufficient quantum of original ideas); Aliotti v. R. Dakin & Co., 831
F.2d 898, 901 (9th Cir. 1987) (“No copyright protection may be afforded to the idea of producing stuffed dinosaur
toys or to elements of expression that necessarily follow from the idea of such dolls.”); Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry
Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 73 8, 742 (9th Cir. 1971) (finding no copyright protection for jewelry in the shape of a
bee because the idea and expression of the bee were inseparable).
26
See Kamar Int’l, Inc. v. Russ Berrie and Co., 657 F.2d 1059, 1061 (9th Cir. 1981) (finding in this case
sufficient elements of originality to permit copyright of stuffed animals)
27
Savata, 323 F.3d at 812; see also Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738, 741 (9th
Cir. 1971) (“Any inference of copying based upon similar appearance lost much of its strength because both [works]
were lifelike representations of a natural creature.”).
28
Savata, 323 F.3d at 813.
29
But see Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) (holding, remarkably, that when
consumers of Sony’s Betamax video recorders copied a complete work, for purposes of time-shifting, it was still
protected as fair use).
Page 6 of 10
obscured, severely out of focus, and virtually unidentifiable.”30 The court excused the use of the
photographs as “de minimis” and a fair use analysis was not required.31
Film, Seven, Copyright © 1995 by New Line Cinema.
As with fair use, there is no bright line test for determining a de minimis use. For
example, in another case, a court determined that the use of a copyrighted poster for a total of 27
seconds in the background of the TV show, “Roc” was not de minimis. What distinguished the
use of the poster from the use of the photographs in the Seven case? The court stated that the
poster was clearly visible and recognizable with sufficient observable detail for the “average lay
observer “ to view the artist’s imagery and colorful style.32
The de minimis doctrine appears to have a lower threshold for music sampling. The
practice of using small segments of music without authorization to build or supplement a new
composition (sampling) was dealt a blow when the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the
use of a two-second sample was an infringement of the sound recording copyright. The court
went further stating that when it came to sound recording there was no permissible minimum
sanctioned under copyright law.33
5.
Words and Short Phrases
Individual words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans are not
copyrightable.34 That means, generally speaking copyright does not attach to names of products
30
Sandoval v. New Line Cinema Corp., 147 F.3d 215, 218 (2d Cir. 1998). The court further explained,
Sandoval's photographs as used in the movie are not displayed with sufficient detail for
the average lay observer to identify even the subject matter of the photographs, much less the style
used in creating them. . . . The photographs are displayed in poor lighting and at great distance.
Moreover, they are out of focus and displayed only briefly in eleven different shots. [T]he eleven
shots here have no cumulative effect because the images contained in the photographs are not
distinguishable.
Id. at 218.
31
Id.
Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc. 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997).
33
Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2004).
34
See Magic Marketing, Inc. v. Mailing Services of Pittsburgh, Inc., 634 F. Supp. 769 (W.D. Pa. 1986)
(“This class is illustrated by case authority denying copyright protection to “fragmentary words and phrases” and to
32
Page 7 of 10
or services, business names, names of organizations or groups, the names of musical bands,
names of individuals, titles of works, catchphrases, slogans, and short advertising expressions.
These words or short phrases, may, however be trademarked. Generally speaking,
trademarked words and phrases may be used in other copyrighted works but may not be used to
sell, or endorse merchandise or products without the trademark holder’s permission.
But, words and phrases may be copyrightable if they are intrinsically linked to a
copyrighted character. In one case, a Texas court found that the phrases “I Love E.T.” and “E.T.
Phone Home!!” written on the side of porcelain mugs and pencil holders infringed Universal
Pictures’ copyright because “‘E.T.’ is more than a mere vehicle for telling the story . . . ‘E.T.’
actually constitutes the story being told. The name ‘E.T.’ itself is highly distinctive and is
inseparable from the identity of the character.”35
Third, short phrases may be copyrightable if they are unusually inventive.36 Although
“Jabberwocky” is out of copyright, Lewis Carol’s weird little poem is a good example of the sort
of work that, even in short doses, even at a few phrases at a time, would likely allow copyright to
attach: “Twas bryllyg, and ye slythy toves/ Did gyre and gymble in ye wabe /All mimsy were ye
borogoves / And ye mome raths outgrabe.”37
6.
Blank Forms
Many blank forms and similar works designed to record rather than convey information
cannot be protected by copyright. Examples include time cards, graph paper, account books,
bank checks, scorecards, address books, report forms, order forms, and diaries. To be protected
by copyright, a work must contain at least a certain minimum amount of original expression.
Forms are more an expression of facts than an expression of creativity.
7.
Ingredients, Formulas, Computations
Listing ingredients or contents in recipes or formulas is not copyrightable because they
are not an original work of authorship. Thus mere computation based on a concept or formula,
or be the mere extrapolation or application of an idea or system, which would always produce
substantially the same result whenever done correctly by anyone are not sufficiently creative.
Computation of interest or transposing music from one key to another are not copyrightable.
8.
Symbols and Typeface
Familiar symbols or designs, and mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering,
“forms of expression dictated solely by functional considerations.”); see also 37 C.F.R. § 202.1(a) (1985)
(explaining that the following categories are not subject to copyright: “Words and short phrases such as names,
titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring;
mere listing of ingredients or contents”).
35
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Kamar Industries, Inc., 217 U.S.P.Q. 1162, 1165 (S.D. Tex. 1982).
36
Brilliant v. W.B. Productions, Inc., Case No. 79-1893-WMB (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 1979) (holding that
Ashleigh Brilliant’s 17-word epigrams are creative and clever enough to be copyrightable).
37
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Jabberwocky, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabberwocky (last visited Aug.
5, 2011).
Page 8 of 10
or coloring are not copyrightable. Typeface nor book design is copyrightable. This is a quirk in
the law codified by the Copyright Office which says that “the arrangement, spacing, or
juxtaposition of text matter which is involved in book design falls within the realm of
uncopyrightable ideas or concepts.”38
As for symbols and designs, standard ornamentation such as chevron stripes, a fleur-delys, or a cross are not copyrightable. Nor are common geometric figures or shapes such as
hexagons, ellipses, circles, triangles, or standard symbols such as an arrow or five-pointed star.
Color schemes, in the abstract are not copyrightable either. But all elements, symbols, colors,
even a few musical notes (think of the Microsoft startup ring, or the NBC chime) may, however,
be trademarked.
9.
Useful Articles
A “useful article” is an item whose inherent function is utilitarian.39 Examples of useful
articles include automobiles, boats household appliances, furniture, work tools, clothing,
dinnerware, and lighting fixtures. Copyright does not
protect the mechanical or utilitarian aspects of useful
articles. Copyright may, however, protect pictorial,
graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified
separately from the utilitarian aspects of the useful
article if the pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features
can be physically or conceptually separable from the
useful article.
For example the BMW Art Cars were painted
by notable artists such as Alexander Calder, Andy
Warhol, and our friend, Jeff Koons. Since the art
covering these cars is “conceptually” separable from
the car itself, it is copyrightable.40
10.
Painting, BMW 3.0 CSL, Copyright © 1975
by Alexander Calder.
Common Property
Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no
original authorship are not eligible for copyright. Examples include standard calendars, height
38
See 46 C.F.R. § 30651 (1981).
A “useful article” is defined as “an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to
portray the appearance of the article or to convey information.” 17 U.S.C. § 101; see also Fabrica Inc. v. El Dorado
Corp., 697 F.2d 890, 893 (9th Cir. 1983) (“[I]f an article has any intrinsic utilitarian function, it can be denied
copyright protection except to the extent that its artistic features can be identified separately and are capable of
existing independently as a work of art.”).
40
The BMW Art Car was conceived in 1975, the year that French auctioneer and racecar driver Herve
Poulain first entered 24 Hours of Le Mans. Searching for a link between art and motorsport, Poulain asked
his friend, noted artist Alexander Calder, to commission a rolling canvas on the BMW 3.0 CSL that he
would race. In the years that followed, this unique combination of motorsport and BMW design fascinated
the famous artists of our time. Frank Stella, Roy Lichtenstein and Andy Warhol have all turned BMW
racing cars into Art Cars.
Segura Inc., BMW Art Cars, http://www.cartype.com/pages/345/bmw_art_cars (last visited July 10, 2010).
39
Page 9 of 10
and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents,
diatonic and chromatic scales, and standard chord charts. But material that’s been added to
“common property” type information, such as instructional text, could be copyrighted.
11.
Spontaneous Events
Creativity expressed in a spontaneous event, such as a spontaneous jazz solo, a
spontaneous rap song, or a dance made up on the spot, absent having been fixed in a tangible
medium prior to the event, such as recorded on paper, on film, on audio tape, are not by
themselves copyrightable. Said expression may become copyrightable if the spontaneous event
is recorded in a tangible medium,41 but at that point, the party doing the recording is the
copyright holder, and not necessarily the artist doing the spontaneous performance.
III.
CONCLUSION
In this paper we discussed the basics of copyright law: what sort of works are protected
by copyright, what sort of works are not so protected, how copyright protection operates, and
what the consequences are for copyright infringement.42
41
17 U.S.C. § 102(a).
For a further discussion of this topic and other issues related to the use of media in film visit the Fair Use
Webinar at the Wood Robbins LLP webpage, http://www.woodrobbins.com/medialaw.html. There you will find a
downloadable video series on the fair use doctrine, the documentary filmmaker’s statement of best practices in fair
use, and other topics related to ways in which content creators can use copyrighted material without being
compelled to purchase a license.
42
Page 10 of 10