It’s Bigger Than Hip-Hop: Sampling and the Emergence of the Market Enhancement Model in Fair Use Case Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 96 (2) ◽  
pp. 598-622 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Brooks Fuller ◽  
Jesse Abdenour

“Sampling” copyrighted works to create new expression has a rich history in creative culture, particularly in hip-hop music, a genre that values revision and recontextualization. However, courts are mixed on whether sampling should be considered fair use. Many courts have found that sampling harms the original artist’s ability to license copyrighted material, thereby diminishing the work’s marketability. But some courts recognize that sampling can enhance the market for the original work. The present study explores the tension between these opposing fair use models—what we call the “pure market substitute” and “market enhancement” models—currently percolating in lower courts. Through an analysis of cases involving hip-hop sampling and similar practices, we argue that the “market enhancement” model, which considers cultural and audience characteristics that impact marketability, better serves the goals of copyright law and should be more widely adopted. We further recommend that courts consider three factors when analyzing market impact in fair use sampling cases: provable effects of the sample on the market for the original work, the nature and duration of the original author’s market participation, and the similarity between markets for the original and secondary works.

Author(s):  
P. Bernt Hugenholtz ◽  
João Pedro Quintais

AbstractThis article queries whether and to what extent works produced with the aid of AI systems – AI-assisted output – are protected under EU copyright standards. We carry out a doctrinal legal analysis to scrutinise the concepts of “work”, “originality” and “creative freedom”, as well as the notion of authorship, as set forth in the EU copyright acquis and developed in the case-law of the Court of Justice. On this basis, we develop a four-step test to assess whether AI-assisted output qualifies as an original work of authorship under EU law, and how the existing rules on authorship may apply. Our conclusion is that current EU copyright rules are generally suitable and sufficiently flexible to deal with the challenges posed by AI-assisted output.


2002 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 4 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Howe-Steiger ◽  
Brian C. Donohue

The Doctrine of Fair Use was established by the courts to exempt certain activities such as teaching and research from the legal requirements of the copyright law. Before the 1976 Revision of the Copyright Act, only two cases were brought against teachers for copyright infringements. In both cases the teachers lost because their extensive copying was found to impact the copyright owner's market for legally published copies. Although the 1976 Act explicitly recognizes the existence of potentially Fair Uses, the act makes application of the principle highly situational. Classroom Guidelines attached to the Act make application even more murky and constrained. After 1976 photocopy technology and the advent of the coursepack began a trend towards circumscribing situations in which Fair Use may be applied. Potential impact on a new, lucrative market for sale of rights to copy portions of books and journals appears to dominate contemporary case law. Desktop publishing and Internet and web-based teaching, the authors believe, will further erode traditional applications of Fair Use for educational purposes. They argue that instructors and researchers should assume that there is no Fair Use on the Internet. Guidelines are provided for faculty and others considering dissemination of potentially copyrighted materials to students via digital technologies.


Author(s):  
Matthew D. Bunker

Fair use in copyright law is an enormously complex legal doctrine.  Although much scholarly attention has been paid to fair use in the context of teaching -- particularly in on-line education -- relatively little research exists on the problem of fair use in scholarship. This article analyzes reported federal cases on fair use in scholarly contexts, with a particular emphasis on the transformative use doctrine that has become enormously influential in fair use determinations. The article explores insights from this body of case law that may assist future scholars wishing to fairly use copyrighted expression in their scholarship.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cole Scott ◽  
John Murnan

Copyright law is a large, complex issue that has found itself at the center of controversy on YouTube. Much of the debate around copyright centers on whether a video is fair use, the exception to copyright laws. There are large problems on YouTube surrounding the exploitation of the Content ID system, and the solutions to these problems often rely on the assumption of clear and defined copyright law, which is far from the case. This led my research into finding out based on the case law, what constitutes fair use on YouTube? Using a content analysis, these complexities of copyright law were able to be broken down into easy-to-understand guidelines. To do this, roughly 30 cases were found using the websites case.law and copyright.gov, and the decision of the case and the reasoning behind it were pulled out to create guidelines based on the copyright case law of court decisions. These guidelines consist of having a license for the copyrighted content, using the content for education, criticism or review, providing significant commentary to shift the focus away from the content, using the content for parody, changing the purpose of the content, or using an insignificant portion of the content. If any of these scenarios are met, then the video will likely not violate copyright. The use of these guidelines could be implemented into YouTubes algorithm, but more likely these guidelines would be easy to follow for creators to know whether or not their video will violate copyright.


2020 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Cantalamessa

Abstract Appropriation art (AA) involves the use of pre-existing works of art with little to no transformation. Works of AA (often) fail to satisfy established criteria for originality, such as creative labour and transformative use. As such, appropriation artists are often subject to copyright lawsuits and defend their work under the fair use doctrine of US copyright law. In legal cases regarding AA and fair use, judges lack a general principle whereby they can determine whether or not the offending party has ‘transformed’ the original work. Further, it is not the case that there is some antecedent fact that could determine the outcome one way or another. I diagnose debates surrounding the transformative nature of works of AA as cases of ‘metalinguistic negotiation’ over what concepts we should attach to terms like ‘copy’, ‘transformative’, and ‘work of art’.


Author(s):  
Susan E. Beck

U.S. copyright law is a continually changing landscape, especially for educators and librarians. To help update those working in educational institutions, this report showcases new developments in federal case law regarding fair use. The three cases profiled show the courts current tendency to favor fair use. Other topics presented comprise new U.S. Copyright Office procedures for designating DMCA agents and ways to best respond to demand letters sent by photo licensing houses.


Author(s):  
Stephen R. Wilson

A crayon drawing from a five-year-old child likely produces a copyrighted work. Notating or recording two measures of a three year-old child depressing piano keys, while not conventionally pleasing to the ear, may nevertheless be worthy of a copyright.1 The artistic merit of a work is not a factor in determining originality. Simply stated, an author satisfies copyright formalities when she affixes an original work of authorship in a tangible medium.2 Case law indicates that the threshold requirement for the originality element of a copyright is a showing of some "minimal level of creativity."3 Few could disagree that the low threshold requirement for originality encourages creativity. An inherent unfairness exists, however, when copyright law shuns creative artists from attaining a copyright.


Author(s):  
Adrian Kuenzler

This chapter analyzes existing U.S. Supreme Court case law with respect to, on the one hand, antitrust’s minimum resale price maintenance plans, bundling and tying practices, as well as refusals to deal, and, on the other hand, trademark law’s dilution, postsale, sponsorship, and initial interest confusion doctrines, including design patent and selected areas of copyright law. It demonstrates that courts, based on the free riding hypothesis, have come to protect increasing amounts of artificial shortage of everyday consumer goods and services and corresponding incentives to innovate. Through the preservation of such values, antitrust and intellectual property laws have evolved into “dilution laws” and have focused, almost exclusively, on the refurbishment of the technological supply side of our present-day digital economies rather than also on the human demand side of “creative consumption.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document