Writers, academics, and journalists frequently need to borrow the words of others. Sooner or later, almost all writers quote or closely paraphrase material that someone else has written. For example:
Andy, putting together a newsletter on his home computer, reprints an editorial he likes from a daily newspaper.
Phil, a biographer and historian, quotes from several unpublished letters and diaries written by his subject.
Regina, a freelance writer, closely paraphrases two paragraphs from the Encyclopedia Britannica in an article she's writing.
Sylvia, a poet, quotes a line from a poem by T.S. Eliot, by way of homage, in one of her own poems.
Donnie, a comedian, writes a parody of a famous song that he performs in his comedy act.
Assuming the material quoted in these examples is protected by copyright, do Andy, Phil, Regina, Sylvia, or Donnie need permission from the author or other copyright owner to use it? It may surprise you to learn that the answer is "not necessarily."
Under the "fair use" defense, another author may make limited use of the original author's work without asking permission. Pursuant to 17 U.S. Code § 107, certain uses of copyrighted material "for purposes such as...
criticism, comment, news reporting,
...teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."
As a matter of policy, fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights. If you write or publish, you need a basic understanding of what does and does not constitute fair use.
Tag @steemcleaners
As a blogger I am well versed in "fair use doctrine" as each site you post and blog on have varying rules for posting. Some only allow excerpts of news articles while others allow the display of the entire new article. I have yet to see any news organization go after a site for posting an article in it's entirety. One reason may be these sites don't use the materials to profit off and they drive traffic to the news site that people ordinarily wouldn't go check out so they serve as a free advertising vector that would otherwise cost news organizations millions in promoting their brand.
They tend to use capricious and tyrannical enforcement. Positive reviews tend to be ignored, but negative reviews are often hit with the ban-hammer.
This results in rampant hypocrisy.
Two people can post identical content with different commentary and one will be allowed to profit while the other faces obscene threats of litigation.
....and ps: all the sites require the posting of the articles link of origin.