Copyrighted work may be used in a limited manner by people who are not the owner, according to the doctrine of "fair use", which does include reproduction for specific purposes such as (but not limited to):

Navigation Links:

Fair Use
Protest Info
Usenet Issues
Copyright Myths
Land Grab
Copy Catfight
Copy Protection
Copyright and Copywrongs
Copywrong
The Law

Support the EFF!

---

Trek Obsession

Site Contents

• Criticism and comment, including parody. This means that the criticism or commentary does not have to be dry and devoid of entertainment value to be protected. Just because it is funny (or sexy, or sentimental, or horrifying, etc.) doesn't mean it doesn't have a serious and legitimate purpose which is allowed under law.
• News, reporting. This means if you wish to quote from a work in an illustrative manner, or illustrate a news article with images of the work, (or sound files, etc.) you may legally do so.
• Teaching, scholarship. This means if you are teaching about the work, or studying about the work in school, you may legally use quotes, images etc. in your schoolwork. There is no need for the teaching or scholarship to be restricted to a structured classroom environment. You don't have to be a licensed teacher or professor to demonstrate a legitimate teaching use. If you lecture, for example, you may use quotes and images to illustrate your lecture. The law does not forbid lecture via web page.
• Research. Any citizen might be able to claim serious research is being conducted.

In deciding whether someone is making "fair use" of a copyrighted work or not, the courts look to a series of factors to determine whether the use is "fair" or an abuse of the copyright. The factors include:

1. the purpose and character of the use
2. whether the use is for profit
3. the nature of the copyrighted work
4. the amount and substance of the portion used
5. the use's effect on the potential market for, or the value of, the copyrighted work.

NOTE: Most fan sites are chockablock full of commentary and newsy bits, and manifest passionately focused volunteer research and scholarship efforts. They also are full of fully-protected original content, which includes web site design. They therefore should be considered to be protected. Fan web sites and other works such as art and fiction should not be censored or harassed, on the grounds that constitutionally protected rights such as the right to free speech and legitimate artistic or instructive expression would be violated. Furthermore, positive fan sites foster rather than harm the value of the copyrighted work, but even negative critical works are protected, not only as fair use, but as free speech.

WHAT ARGUMENTS MAY BE ADVANCED TO DEFEND AGAINST
A CLAIM OF COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT?

You may argue:

1. "I did not copy your work, but independently created it." Good luck with this one. If you retransmit information you read in a newsgroup post by rewording it, that is not a copyright violation. Copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself.
2. "I was only making fair use of the material" (discussed above). This is actually a very strong defense. You can legally quote from your private email to illustrate points in an article about typical and atypical comments you recieve in your email, for example. People commonly quote from posts they are responding to in newsgroups, and this is proper. To edit the quote in a way that casts the author in a bad light is not copyright infringement, but might be considered libelous, so watch it.
3. "You delayed bringing the action for too long a period" (so that it is barred by "latches" and/or the applicable statute of limitations). This too can be a powerful hammer for fan's rights.
4. "Someone with proper authority has authorized the use." Be prepared to prove this with appropriate documentation. On this site I use the original work of two artists and two photographers who have granted me exclusive and unfettered right to use their work on my site, and I can prove this is so. They have been properly thanked, and are credited to the extent that they wished to be credited, and I can prove this too.
5. "I didn't know it was copyrighted". This defense is very weak. Don't even consider using it. Even if you can prove you just didn't know any better, you may still be found liable, since you are supposed to know better.

   There are obvious copyright notices all over this site, and that means if you haven't recieved permission from me to copy this stuff, the answer is no, you can't use it. You do not have permission to link to me if you are a pay site using my content to earn money without giving me any of it. I am available for hire, if you want to give visitors to your commercial site "That Laura Goodwin Feeling". Consider paying me to write something exclusive for you.

---

So, can you legally steal or censor my site design or my original works? No.

May I use images and characters owned by Paramount (a Viacom company) for my parodies, verse, stories and essays in my highly entertaining multimedia web site presentation illustrating the personal and social effects of broadcasting BDSM and alternative sexuality imagery , using one TV program, (the original Star Trek) and examples of the obsessive fandom (my own, and the fans I parody) which it has spawned, for an example - when same is intended (not for profit, but...) for entertainment and instructive purposes, highlighting the importance of being serious about TV program content, especially when the main intent and effect of said presentation is to bolster the enthusiasm of existing fans, and attract fresh fans to the dear old franchise? Yes.