Introduction
Academic and authored works are intended to benefit the original authors financially. Therefore, reprinting the materials by people other than the original writers for financial gain infringes upon copyright. In the given hypothetical case scenario, Professor Phil Jones compiled the news articles and financially benefited from the work. The defendant argues that news articles cannot be copyrighted and that classroom use of the work is “fair use.” Following the “fair use” as a balance test, Phil Jones’ defenses are insufficient.
Phil Jones’ Defense Evaluation
First Defense
Copyright is essential in the contemporary educational experience since it protects the values of scholars and researchers by giving them the ability to protect their work from uncredited usage. News articles, like any other research work, can be copyrighted.
In the U.S., any news article published after 1923 cannot be reprinted or republished without copyright (Dratler & McJohn, 2022). Phil Jones republished various news articles on the Iraq War, which started in 2003, making his work subject to copyright. Therefore, to republish the news article, Phil Jones needed permission from the owners of the original works.
Second Defense
The Purpose and Character of the Use
Phil Jones argued that the use of the work was fair since it was intended to benefit students. According to 17 U.S. Code § 107, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including news reporting, is not an infringement of copyright (Awad, 2022).
However, part 1 of the section states that the purpose and character of the use must not be commercial but non-profit and educational (Franceschelli & Musolesi, 2022). Phil Jones’ use of the copyrighted work was commercially intended since he received royalties. The purpose of the book prepared by Phil Jones was a commercial one, failing to meet the ‘fair use’ test.
Copyrighted Work Nature
The nature of the copyrighted work is essential in determining its ‘fair use.’ The second subsection of 17 U.S. Code § 107 provides for the nature of copyrighted work as a “fair use” determining factor (Awad, 2022). The U.S. copyright laws protect various works depending on their characteristics. Fair use applies more broadly to non-fiction than fiction works, which include news articles.
Phil Jones’ books contain news on the war front and first-person accounts by journalists. In the case of Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc., 883 F.3d 169 (2d Cir.) (2018), the Federal court stated that users must do something more than just repackaging by adding something new to the material. Phil Jones made exact copies of the original works without adding anything new, breaching the ‘fair use’ test.
Portion Used Substantiality
While there is no specific measure for a copyrighted work portion used, the courts have adopted a qualitative approach. Subsection 3 of 17 U.S. Code § 107 states that the amount and substantiality of the used portion in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole must be considered (Awad, 2022).
Phil Jones made exact copies of the articles without altering or making any changes. The more one takes from the original work, the less likely their work is to be excused as fair use. Therefore, the portion of the original work used by Phil Jones was least likely to be excused from the balancing test.
Use Effect on Potential Market
The last factor provided under 17 U.S. Code § 107 is the effect of the use upon the market for the copyrighted work. Although this factor can be complicated to establish, given the wide scope of markets, the courts have linked it with the purpose. In the hypothetical case, Phil Jones photocopied the articles for classroom use.
The purpose can barely affect the potential market for the articles. Instead, it exposes the work to a broader audience in the educational setting. Although the work meets the last criterion, it has failed to establish “fair use” based on the first three factors.
Conclusion
Copyright laws protect original published works from misuse by third parties. In the hypothetical case, Phil Jones photocopied news articles and made a book from which he gained royalties. While the defendant defended himself by stating that news articles are not copyrighted and his use was a “fair use,” the defenses fell short of the factors provided under 17 U.S. Code § 107. Therefore, news organizations are subject to compensation from the book that contains their news articles.
References
Awad, T. (2023). Universalizing copyright fair use: To copy, or not to copy? Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 30(1), 1. Web.
Dratler, J., & McJohn, S. M. (2022). Intellectual Property Law. Law Journal Press.
Fox News Network, LLC v. TVEyes, Inc. 883 F.3d 169 (2d Cir.) (2018). LexisNexis. Web.
Franceschelli, G., & Musolesi, M. (2022). Copyright in generative deep learning. Data & Policy, 4. Web.