But it seems to me, without having given it the thought it deserves, that this explicit and targeted copying, so far from being a factor in support of
a fair use exemption or implied licence as WebCite argues, would be simply a direct violation of copyright.
Included under
the fair use exemption.
Not exact matches
Mr. Prince has argued that his
use of the photographs should be allowed under
fair -
use exemptions to copyright protections, which allow limited borrowing of protected material for purposes like commentary, criticism, news reporting and scholarship.
The Patent Act does not include «
fair dealing» or a personal
use exemption (although it does allow experiments that relating to the patent under s. 55 (6)-RRB-.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), its
exemptions, and the
fair -
use clause of Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 107 of the US Code clearly provide methods by which an individual may
use copyrighted material, even if that material is protected by Digital Rights Management (DRM).
And to respond in part as to why I may be one of those «fired up» over the current ruling, I think that parts over the ruling will relegate copyright
exemptions and «
fair use» for the visually impaired to the realm of handicapped parking placards... and to diagram the gist of the ruling regarding
fair use, ADA, Chafee, 1976 Copyright Act House Report, etc. would resemble a Rube Goldberg cartoon.
You may be thinking of
fair use /
fair dealing
exemptions to copyright breach.
This distinction has a long legal history and is entrenched through
fair use clauses, the academic exception, various tax
exemptions, Bayh - Dole Act, etc..