tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post5874676602670591452..comments2024-03-10T10:55:11.119+00:00Comments on The 1709 Blog: Fair use in the US: the Wiley case and prior art for patentsMarie-Andree Weisshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17125973798789498436noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-89648317490233252402012-07-18T20:25:59.034+01:002012-07-18T20:25:59.034+01:00As far as UK copyright law is concerned, it is wor...As far as UK copyright law is concerned, it is worth noting that in addition to ss 29-31 covering the fair dealing exemptions, there is also <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/60" rel="nofollow">s 60</a> regarding the copying of abstracts of scientific and technical papers etc. While such abstracts would probably not contain sufficient detail to act as NPL in support of a UK patent application, the existence of the section does signify Parliament's intention back in 1988 to effectively put some scientific reporting in the public domain.<br /><br />Also where the posting suggests that the USPTO is invoking lese-majesty by arguing that the US government has a 'right' to access copyright data without a licence, this is not so far from what <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/45" rel="nofollow">s 45</a> of CDPA does in respect of judicial proceedings, as we saw when HHJ Birss helpfully published the two photographs within his judgment in the <a href="http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWPCC/2012/1.html" rel="nofollow">Red Bus case</a>, thus allowing commentators to further publish the said images with impunity, which of course would not have been possible under s 30(2) - reporting current events - because that sub-section does not apply to photographs.Andy Jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4513524515428334509.post-61319661373320570442012-07-18T18:40:25.409+01:002012-07-18T18:40:25.409+01:00Fair use analysis might be more predictive than us...Fair use analysis might be more predictive than usually thought. These might be of interest:<br /><br />"An Empirical Study of U.S. Copyright Fair Use Opinions, 1978-2005, Barton Beebe (2008) — Comprehensive look at how courts have actually applied fair use in decisions, including “which factors and subfactors actually drive the outcome of the fair use test in practice, how the fair use factors interact, how courts inflect certain individual factors, and the extent to which judges stampede the factor outcomes to conform to the overall test outcome.”<br /><br />"Unbundling Fair Use, Pamela Samuelson (2009) — By grouping fair uses into different “policy-relevant clusters”, Samuelson shows that application of the doctrine is far more predictable than typically described.<br /><br />"Predicting Fair Use, Matthew Sag (2011) — More empirical evidence that shows fair use law is more rational and consistent than commonly assumed.<br /><br />"Making Sense of Fair Use, Neil Natanel (2011) — Combining the previous three empirical studies of fair use, Natanel adds his own research to this area to provide a comprehensive look at fair use case law."<br /><br />blurbs taken from: http://www.copyhype.com/references/<br /><br />Only Beebe's study is freely available, though copyhype does have links to abstracts for the other articles.Wordbabey™https://www.blogger.com/profile/10235715202974393115noreply@blogger.com