Re: Is Fair Use Dead?

On Wed, 04 Mar 1998, Leah Theriault <wheedle[_at_]uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> On 3/3/98, Glen McKay <gmckay[_at_]nmjc.cc.nm.us> wrote:
> >
> > Hmmmmmm... I wonder why? Speaking from a not-for-profit educational
> > perspective, could it be because there *is* no case law to speak of?
> > I mean there appears to be virtually none although, not being a lawyer
> > but having done enough academic research on the subject, I'm sure
> > there are a *few.*
> >
> > Could it be that nobody in academe wants to become a "test case?"
> > Does anybody out there want to risk their professional reputation by
> > having their name cited as a defendant in an infringement case? Or
> > could it be that no one who has received a cease-and-desist letter
> > wants to escalate the matter further? I mean, what financially
> > strapped institution of higher learning wants to increase their risk
> > management fees?
>
> I think the reason why no prof has been sued is because it is
> easier, and more profitable, for the copyright owner to go after the
> distribution channel, the copiers such as Kinko's. In short, no one
> would bother going after the profs, even if they broadcast their
> photcopying activites over national television.

In December 1982, a group of publishers sued NYU and 9 of its professors (individually), along with the Gnomon copy shop. I think the case was settled out of court in early 1983, with NYU and the professors admitting wrongdoing (I don't know the details of the settlement); shortly thereafter, Gnomon went out of business. The Kinko's case came after this one.

Regards,
Barbara Polansky
<bpolansky[_at_]acs.org>
(I'm not a lawyer) Received on Fri Mar 06 1998 - 14:18:24 GMT