The Nature and Function of Exceptions to Copyright Infringement

Author(s):  
Pascale Chapdelaine

This chapter looks at the nature of exceptions to copyright infringement (e.g., fair use, fair dealing) and at how copyright user rights are often assimilated to exceptions to copyright infringement. It discusses whether copyright user rights should be better understood as a rule of interpretation of exceptions, rather than giving rise to ‘rights’ as the legal meaning of that term suggests. It further investigates the consequences of exceptions to copyright infringement being characterized as rights or privileges and whether they are (or should be) mandatory (i.e., that exceptions may not be waived by contract). It looks at the mechanics and shortcomings of exceptions to copyright infringement as a regulatory tool. The chapter concludes that exceptions are probably better characterized as privileges than rights, and that, unless expressly stated otherwise, they may be waived by contract. This account of exceptions to copyright infringement reveals a weak strain of copyright user rights.

Author(s):  
Sabine Jacques

This chapter examines the consequences of the nature and function of the parody exception in copyright law. It first explains the ‘mechanics’ behind the parody exception, particularly as a defence to copyright infringement, before discussing the legal nature of copyright exceptions and in relation to copyright and contract laws. It then addresses the question of whether copyright exceptions, especially the parody exception, amount to rights or are more akin to interests. It also considers the principle of strict interpretation as a rule of interpretation for the parody exception and reviews recent decisions that illustrate whether the user rights approach resulted in any noticeably broader interpretation of copyright exceptions. Finally, it explores the principles underpinning freedom of contract and how judges, notwithstanding the parody exception’s procedural label as a defence, assess fair use, fair dealing, or rules of the genre in light of the right to freedom of expression.


2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 601-613
Author(s):  
Gretchen L. Casey

Over the past few years, the rise in popularity of a genre of You- Tube videos known as “reaction videos” has resulted in controversy for various reasons. The United States District Court in Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, a landmark case for the genre, described the “reaction videos” as “a large genre of YouTube videos . . . [that] vary widely in terms of purpose, structure, and the extent to which they rely on potentially copyrighted material.” According to the Hosseinzadeh opinion, “[s]ome reaction videos. . .intersperse short segments of another’s work with criticism and commentary, while others are more akin to a group viewing session without commentary.” Essentially, reaction videos are exactly what the name suggests: a video showing a person or group of people reacting to the work of another, which by nature requires the incorporation of the work being reacted to for the viewer’s reference. The first time that controversy arose out of the “reaction” genre was in 2015 when the Fine Brothers, the creators of a popular YouTube channel known for its “Kids React” series along with several other “reaction video” series, applied to trademark the term “react.” The brothers did so with the intention to create a program called “React World,” through which they would license out the “reaction video” format to other video creators. This endeavor came not long after the Fine Brothers criticized Ellen DeGeneres for allegedly using their “re- action” format in a segment on her television show, suggesting the brothers’ belief that they were the sole owners of what is, in reality, a widely-used format. As a result, YouTube viewers became distrustful of the Fine Brothers’ intentions in trademarking the format, and viewers criticized them to the point that they issued a public apology in February of 2016 in which they announced their decision to “[r]escind all. . .‘React’ trademarks and applications” and “[d]iscontinue the React World program.” Later in 2016, reaction videos would again become the subject of controversy when Ethan and Hila Klein, the husband-and-wife creators of the popular YouTube comedy channel H3H3 Productions, were sued by Matt Hosseinzadeh of the decidedly less popular You- Tube channel, Matt Hoss Zone, for copyright infringement. Hosseinzadeh alleged copyright infringement for the use of segments of his video, “Bold Guy vs. Parkour Girl,” in a humorous reaction video made by the Kleins.8 What resulted was the aforementioned Hosseinzadeh v. Klein opinion, which set a precedent that will hopefully allow future reaction video creators to produce and share content without their creativity being stifled by the looming risk of copyright infringement lawsuits. Hosseinzadeh alleged that a video, which was part of a series of videos, starring himself as “Bold Guy,” “in which the Bold Guy flirts with a woman and chases her through various sequences” was infringement. Hosseinzadeh alleged that the Kleins’ video entitled “The Big, The BOLD, The Beautiful,” infringed upon “Bold Guy vs. Parkour Girl,” as it featured the couple “comment[ing] on and criticiz[ing] [his] video, playing portions of it in the process.” Accepting the Kleins’ motion for summary judgment, which pleaded the fair use defense, the court held that its “review of the. . .videos makes it clear that [the claim] in which plaintiff alleges that defendants in- fringed plaintiff’s copyrights, must be decided in defendants’ favor.”


2021 ◽  
Vol 71 (4) ◽  
pp. 571-594
Author(s):  
Emily Hudson ◽  
Paul Wragg

This article asks whether the catastrophic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic justifies new limitations or interventions in copyright law so that UK educational institutions can continue to serve the needs of their students. It describes the existing copyright landscape and suggests ways in which institutions can rely on exceptions in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA), including fair dealing and the exemption for lending by educational establishments. It then considers the viability of other solutions. It argues that issues caused by the pandemic would not enliven a public interest defence to copyright infringement (to the extent this still exists in UK law) but may be relevant to remedies. It also argues that compulsory licensing, while permissible under international copyright law, would not be a desirable intervention, but that legislative expansion to the existing exceptions, in order to encourage voluntary collective licensing, has a number of attractions. It concludes by observing that the pandemic highlights issues with the prevailing model for academic publishing and asks whether COVID may encourage universities to embrace in-house and open access publishing more swiftly and for an even greater body of material.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Urquhart

While copyright legally protects the ownership of created works, fair dealing with copyrighted content has become a problematic topic with the rise of user-generated content. User-generated content can be easily produced with modern technology and shared on the internet. This has resulted in websites having complicated processes for dealing with copyrighted content and many have introduced automated copyright detection systems to limit their liabilities of copyright infringement. Since automated copyright detection systems have been introduced, they have fundamentally changed the way copyright infringement is managed online. However, a problem arises with automated copyright detection systems as they are incapable of detecting fair dealing. Fair dealing is a provision under New Zealand’s Copyright Act 1994 that allows the use of copyrighted content in certain cases. Consequently, this has turned into a controversial area between content creators and copyright holders as most user-generated content usually contains copyrighted content. Copyright laws also favour mass media companies as they control significant copyright properties, and this plays a key role in the economy. For this reason, copyright genuinely tends to focus on the rights of copyright holders and not so much for users of copyrighted content. Furthermore, New Zealand's Copyright Act 1994 has not been updated since 2011 and has become unsuitable for modern forms of creation on the internet. This research portfolio investigates the problematic issues concerning New Zealand’s Copyright Act 1994 with its application to user-generated content and YouTube’s automated copyright detection system called ‘Content ID’. To express research findings, this research portfolio contains a user-generated documentary and several other proposed methods of bypassing Content ID.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tatsuhiro Ueno

Abstract After the long discussions in Japan over the introduction of a general clause on copyright exceptions since 2007, the ‘flexible’ provisions on copyright exceptions (Arts. 30-4, 47-4 and 47-5) were finally introduced into the Japanese Copyright Act in 2018 and came into effect in 2019. They differ widely from the US fair use clause and the UK fair dealing provisions. This article focuses on Art. 30-4, which comprehensively allows an exploitation of a work that is aimed at neither enjoying nor causing another person to enjoy the work. In particular, any exploitation for text-and-data mining (TDM) is widely permitted by any means under Art. 30-4, including for commercial purposes. The underlying theory behind this relates to the nature of copyright, or the justification for copyright protection that an exploitation not for ‘enjoyment’ purposes is beyond the inherent scope of copyright because it does not prejudice the opportunities of the copyright holders to receive compensation. While this might sound unusual, it is interesting to note that some similar theories can be found in Europe, some of which try to widely exclude TDM activities from the scope of copyright based on the idea of ‘a use as a work’. Considering such common characteristics of the theories regarding copyright and ‘enjoyment’ of a work, Art. 30-4 of the Japanese Copyright Act and the theoretical justification for it might have implications for other jurisdictions regarding copyright exceptions or the substantive scope of copyright.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document