Brennan Center for Justice 59
of the copyrighted work was a fair use,” but only if the
infringer was an employee or agent of certain nonprofit
organizations, and the copying fell within specific
categories. 17 U.S. Code §§504(c)(2). Courts can also
acquit criminal defendants who honestly believed their
acts were fair use. United States v. Moran, 757 F. Supp.
1046, 1048 (D. Neb. 1991).
32
17 U.S.Code §512(c)-(g). Other provisions of the
DMCA make it a crime to circumvent the digital rights
management, or “DRM” technologies that corporate
copyright owners have created to stop unauthorized
access to, or copying of, their products. Courts have
recognized that these “anti-circumvention” provisions
threaten fair use – for example, when a film critic wants
to circumvent DRM in order to access a film frame
to illustrate an article – but they have upheld the law
nonetheless. Universal City Studios v. Corley, 273 F.3d
429, 459 (2d Cir. 2001); United States v. Elcom Ltd.,
203 F. Supp.2d 1125, 1131 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
33
17 U.S.Code §512(g) contains detailed requirements
for counter-notification, including a statement that
the subscriber consents to be sued by the sender of the
take-down notice.
34
Online Policy Group v. Diebold,, 337 F. Supp.2d
1195, 1203 (N.D. Cal. 2004). e court also found
that Diebold had knowingly misrepresented that the
postings violated copyright law, in violation of §512(f)
of the DMCA.
35
See Bridgeport Music v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d
792, 803-04 (6
th
Cir. 2005) (describing the clearance
culture for music sampling).
36
David Bollier, Brand Name Bullies: e Quest to Own
and Control Culture (2005), 24-26.
37
Pat Aufderheide & Peter Jaszi, “Untold Stories:
Creative Consequences of the Rights Clearance Culture
for Documentary Filmmakers” (Center for Social
Media/Program on Intellectual Property & the Public
Interest, American University, 2004), http://www.
centerforsocialmedia.org/rock/finalreport.htm (visited
6/17/05).
38
Michael C. Donaldson, Clearance & Copyright
(2003), 209, includes a sample E&O insurance form.
39
Westmoreland sued CBS for a documentary that
“charged a conspiracy by the general’s command in
1967 to show progress in the war by understating
the size of the enemy”; he withdrew the suit after 18
weeks of trial, including damaging testimony from
his former aides. Myron Farber, “e Westmoreland
Case: A Broken West Point Tie,” New York Times, Feb.
24, 1985, 1:1. Sharon sued Time over charges that he
encouraged the killing of Palestinians at refugee camps;
a jury found that Time had made false and defamatory
statements, but not deliberately or recklessly; thus,
there was no liability. Arnold Lubasch, “Time Cleared
of Libeling Sharon But Jurors Criticize Its Reporting,”
New York Times, Jan. 25, 1985, A1. Even though
the defendants won both of these suits, the costs of
defending them were enormous.
40
Reiff’s description here of industry practice
conflicts with a section of the copyright law that
allows “the making, distributing, or public display of
pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial
representations” of “an architectural work,” as long as
“the building in which the work is embodied is located
in or ordinarily visible from a public place.” 17 U.S.
Code §120. anks to David Nimmer for pointing
out that Disney does not own the copyright in the
architectural work, Disney Hall.
41
Ad-Hoc Committee of Educational Institutions and
Organizations on Copyright Law Revision Guidelines,
“Agreement on Guidelines for Classroom Copying in
Not-For-Profit Educational Institutions,” reprinted in
House Report No. 94-1476, 94
th
Cong., 2d Sess. 65-
74 (1976).
42
E.g., Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko’s Graphics Corp., 758
F. Supp. 1522, 1535-37 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (commercial
copy center’s reproduction of college course packs
was not fair use, and was also outside the Classroom
Guidelines); American Geophysical Union v. Texaco,
60 F.3d at 919 & n.5 (copying of journal articles by
hundreds of company scientists in connection with
their research was not fair use; it was not “spontaneous”
within the meaning of the Classroom Guidelines,
which, although “not considered necessarily binding
on courts,” are “persuasive authority marking out
certain minimum standards for educational fair uses”);
Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services,
99 F.3d 1381, 1390 (6
th
Cir. 1996) (photocopying by
a commercial copy shop for course packs was not fair
use; included in the legislative history of §107, the
guidelines represent part of Congress’s “understanding
of fair use”). One of the dissenting judges in the
Princeton case objected to his colleagues’ reliance on
guidelines that Congress specifically chose not to enact
into law; id., 1412 (Judge Ryan dissenting).
43
See Kenneth Crews, “e Law of Fair Use and the
Illusion of Fair Use Guidelines,” 62 Ohio State L.J. 599,
639-40 (2001) (describing two settlements in which
photocopy shops agreed to adhere to the guidelines,
and another case in which New York University did so).
44
Organizations that opposed some or all of the
CONFU Guidelines include the American Association
of State Colleges and Universities, American Council
on Education, American Historical Society, American
Library Association, Association of American
Universities, Association of Research Libraries, Medical
Library Association, National Association of State
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and American
Association of Law Libraries. Crews, 62 Ohio State L.J.
at 610 n. 36.
45
Id., 603 n. 4.
46
See http://www.negativland.com (visited 7/22/05);
Negativland, Fair Use: e Story of the Letter U and the
Numeral 2 (1995); Bollier, Brand Name Bullies, 214.
47
For more on e Grey Album, see chapter 3; for more
on Rhizome, see chapter 2.