Free Copyright and Fair Use Guide

Not sure which forum this should go in. This subject came up in a question I asked and it reminded me that "Fair Use" is one of the most misunderstood concepts. I was once in a job position that required me to stay informed on some of the nuances of fair use and copyright.  One common myth that never seems to die is that "if you use less than [insert any low amount] it is fair use and you cannot be sued.  This is an an absolute lie and will get you sued. While it is true that the larger the amount sampled or used will increased the liability, there is no preset timeframe.  A half second sample of James Brown screaming "Heeeey!" is worth a lot more than a full song by me.  Anyway, in one workshop i was required to take, they passed out a very useful comic book on the topic published by Duke Law School.  It is very easy to understand and clears up a lot of misconceptions.  The PDF version is free to download:http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/comics/

Even though it is presented as a comic book, this legal article, like most such endeavors, clarifies nothing and complicates everything. The philosophical message that copyright law is out of balance, is well received, but the idea that "artists" can have much influence on the process of copyright legislation and litigation is ludicrous. The big money in art is in mass media, and the artist is almost never the important player in how mass media is marketed or exploited. The rights culture is part of the corporate exploitation side of the art business not the creative side, and the last time Congress listened to an artist in such matters we got the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1976.
 
As a point of law fair use seems to have definable parameters, even tests, but as a matter of practice the ambiguity of those tests and the apparently discordant interpretation of those tests against the facts in litigation before various courts and judges leaves the artist with very little confidence. As a practical matter if you plan to use fair use as a defense in an infringement action you have probably already sold the family farm for legal expenses with very little chance of ever recovering your costs and a good chance of losing your shirt. The most aggressive and expensive lawyers in copyright law work for corporate plaintiffs.

Slartabartfast..BINGO! The laws are setup so that you better have deep pockets even if you are right. I don't think the book means to be ambiguous. I think it means to drive home the point you made but also add false hope. Copyright laws have gotten progressively more slanted. The Sony Bono act did help matters. Look at a documentary from the 60's and 70's and one made now and drastic differences stand out. The tv running in the background was not seen as infringement but just an incidental part of history.

dubdisciple
 The Sony Bono act did help matters. 

My point was that relative to the average citizen's interest and benefit from limiting the term of copyright so that works would enter the public domain, the Bono act made things much worse. It retroactively extended copyright protection to existing works by decades hence the "Micky Mouse Protection Act" moniker that it clearly deserved. The only significant relaxation of the exclusivity of the copyright monopoly, which in practice is usually held by immortal corporations, was to permit libraries to make archival copies of works that have no marketable value (a mere assertion that they do have value by the copyright holder seems to block this) and to allow small eating establishments to play the radio without paying the performing rights organizations.
 
A fairly good characterization of the law can be found in a dissenting opinion by Justice Breyer when it was found constitutional.
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/eldredd1.pdf
 

Recently, I tested for my amateur radio license and one aspect of the test was rules and regulations. One of those was in regard to the broadcast or rebroadcast of music.  No music of any kind, from any source, including background music is permitted. So if you're in your home or car and need to talk on the radio, and you have music playing on the FM radio... you have to turn the FM off to prevent the inadvertant rebroadcast of music on the ham frequencies..... I imagine this is related closely to copyright laws......  The only exception to this is if you are talking with the folks on the ISS and they happen to have music playing in the background.... that is permitted.

Guitarhacker
Recently, I tested for my amateur radio license and one aspect of the test was rules and regulations. One of those was in regard to the broadcast or rebroadcast of music.  No music of any kind, from any source, including background music is permitted. So if you're in your home or car and need to talk on the radio, and you have music playing on the FM radio... you have to turn the FM off to prevent the inadvertant rebroadcast of music on the ham frequencies.....

yes, this is absolutely correct.
 

Guitarhacker
I imagine this is related closely to copyright laws...... 

No.   The rule is the same even if you owned every possible right to the music. 
It's to do with the purpose of amateur radio and its use as defined in the full terms of your license.  To summarize, amateur radio is an exception to the general rules and requirements for the rest of the radio world to allow us to build our own equipment and perform operational tests and experiments for the advancement of radio technology.  We can perform such "tests" by talking to each other on a one to one basis only. We are not allowed to broadcast.  Broadcasting, as done by your local commercial radio station, requires a license of its own.
While it's true that once you press transmit everyone in range (which could be the whole world) can hear you, the amateur license allows you to communicate with one person at a time.  By transmitting music you are deemed to be deliberately intending more than one person to hear it, which is broadcasting and against the terms of your license.
Radio "nets" where many people are involved get around this on a technicality by having someone act as a "controller". All communication is directed at the controller (that's the loop hole) who also keeps note of who is taking part and who can talk next.
The only exception I know of is for news bulletins by governing bodies.  Here in UK the RSGB issues news every week (or used to, I haven't listened for a long time). This is broadcast on the amateur frequencies (usually 2m) by local amateur volunteers.  Under the terms of the exception the news must be read word for word from a pre-prepared script without deviation.  Which can produce some interesting Ron Burgundy moments... but rules is rules
 

Guitarhacker
The only exception to this is if you are talking with the folks on the ISS and they happen to have music playing in the background.... that is permitted.

If a spaceman called you and there was music in the background would you honestly tell him to turn it off?  

It depends on what the spaceman was playing and whose definition of music we were using. It also depends on the time of day. When they call me in the middle of the night, I don't care how much they love Deth Yodeling. I just want to make it stop. The fact that it's usually a wrong number doesn't help.
 
E.T. Stop playing with the phone!