Thread by @KyleKCourtney

A #copyright #Halloween Story: I was reading about @internetarchive's project to digitize the Marygrove College #Library collection. About halfway through the article I was horrified to see a copyright myth brought back from the dead!🧛On Halloween!🎃libraryjournal.com/?detailStory=i… /1

The myth from the article is that somehow #fairuse can’t “extend to creating and distributing complete copies of a copyrighted work.” From the #SupremeCourt to the #fairuse statute itself, the fair use doctrine does not have a ban on copying or distributing “the whole thing.” /2

This is a myth that I, and my #copyright colleagues around the country, have been trying to “mythbust” for decades! So let's take shake down this #fairuse skeleton like #VanHelsing! /3

Again, neither in the language of the #fairuse statute, 17 USC §107, nor the 40+ years of fair use jurisprudence that has interpreted this statute has somehow banned the potential for copying an entire work under fair use. /4

In fact, the #fairuse statute was designed specifically to avoid the use of an arbitrary number or amount! And, as the Supreme Court stated in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. (the Betamax case in 1984): /5

“the fact that the entire work is reproduced … does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use." scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c… /6

The third factor of #fairuse statute which is the "how much?" part (“the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole”) is only one part of a careful calculated balance reflected in all four factors of the #fairuse statute. /7

Certainly, it is easy to say that “less is more,” for this #fairuse third factor, but even that is not quite accurate /8

There are many, many cases where copies of the “whole thing” have been found to be a #fairuse. Beyond the Sony Betamax case, contemporary courts have adopted this interpretation for modern digitization projects. /9

In Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, about digitized books & access, a court reaffirmed the flexible third factor & stated that “[f]or some purposes, it may be necessary to copy the entire copyrighted work, in which case Factor Three does not weight against a finding of #fairuse.” /10

The Grateful Dead posters case (Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd.) saw the a court confirm that "copying the entirety of a work is sometimes necessary to make a #fairuse..." /11

Judge Leval followed the Hathi court’s approach when he wrote in Authors Guild v. Google, another book digitization case, “courts have rejected any categorical rule that a copying of the entirety cannot be a #fair use.” scholar.google.com/scholar_case?c… /12

So, let us embrace the flexibility #copyright law provides, including #fairuse and the famous third factor, & bust dead myths that would potentially chill the ability for teachers, authors, scholars, artists, journalists, musicians, #libraries, archives... /13

...and any other people from being able to utilize their rights under fair use. /14

And @LibraryJournal, please, if you are going to talk about #copyright law inside the article about #libraries, digitization, & #access – please do not bring these copyright myths back from the dead!🧛Even on #Halloween! /FIN