(no subject)

Hi,  

Although I don't know of any particular case, I would like to add to this question, sort of. The question as written assumes that the fourth factor is limited to direct monetary gain. However, if the plaintiff permitted people access to the works for free, and even reproduction of the works for free, it is still the plaintiff doing such and thus in control of distribution. Monetary gain could be indirect. By controlling the distribution in such a way that the plaintiff's reputation is increased in the field through the material's distribution, and that reputation can lead to increases revenue elsewhere, then what arguments can be made? The fourth factor seems to lean towards the market of the item in question, though, so this may all be moot.  

All that said, the fourth factor is related to the potential market. So even though you give something away for free today, does not mean that you won't charge in the future. If there is a potential market, it would seem that even though you were currently giving something away for free, that does not mean that everyone else can do the same.  

Sincerely,  

Virgil E. Varvel Jr.

Illinois Online Network

University Outreach and Public Service

University of Illinois

Vvarvel[_at_]uillinois.edu    

------=_NextPart_001_00C1_01C6F84F.59C11A10

Content-Type: text/plain;

      charset="iso-8859-1"

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit  

BlankIs anyone aware of a fair-use decision in which the court found that the fourth fair-use factor favored the plaintiff even though the plaintiff did not derive any monetary compensation from permitting people to reproduce its works? That is, the plaintiff permitted people to reproduce works from its Web site, but did not charge for the privilege?  

Jessica R. Friedman

Attorney at Law

757 Third Avenue

Suite 1903

New York, New York 10017

Phone: 212-220-0900

Fax: 212-973-9101

jrfriedman[_at_]litproplaw.com Received on Sat Oct 28 2006 - 01:09:13 GMT