U.S. Copyright Act · USA
Fair Use Agent, 17 U.S.C. §107
Fair use avgörs alltid från fall till fall genom fyra faktorer. Domstolarna väger särskilt syftet med användningen och effekten på marknaden för originalverket.
Lagtexten och de fyra faktorerna
17 U.S.C. §107 Fair use is not an infringement
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
17 U.S.C. §107(1) Factor 1: purpose and character of the use
the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
17 U.S.C. §107(2) Factor 2: nature of the copyrighted work
the nature of the copyrighted work;
17 U.S.C. §107(3) Factor 3: amount and substantiality of the portion used
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
17 U.S.C. §107(4) Factor 4: effect on the potential market
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
17 U.S.C. §107 (final sentence) Unpublished works
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
Skadestånd vid intrång
17 U.S.C. §504(c): USD 750 till USD 30,000 per verk, upp till USD 150,000 vid uppsåtligt intrång och ned till USD 200 vid ovetande intrång.
Avgöranden med officiell källa (7)
- Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 1985-05-20. Prejudikat (Högsta domstolen).
Publishing verbatim excerpts of an unpublished memoir ahead of its release was not fair use; market effect is the single most important element.
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 1994-03-07. Prejudikat (Högsta domstolen).
Commercial parody can be fair use; the more transformative the new work, the less weight other factors such as commerciality carry.
- Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. 1, 2021-04-05. Prejudikat (Högsta domstolen).
Copying the declaring code of the Java SE API to build a new platform was fair use as a matter of law.
- Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508, 2023-05-18. Prejudikat (Högsta domstolen).
Factor 1 favoured the photographer where the licensed use shared substantially the same commercial purpose as the original; new meaning alone is not enough.
- Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB, 2025-02-11. Inte slutligt, överklagat, AI-träning.
Using Westlaw headnotes to build a competing non-generative AI legal search tool was not fair use; factors 1 and 4 favoured the rights holder.
- Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. C 24-05417 WHA, 2025-06-23. Distriktsdomstol, inte prejudikat, AI-träning.
Training language models on lawfully purchased books was fair use; building a central library from pirated copies was not.
- Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 23-cv-03417-VC, 2025-06-25. Distriktsdomstol, inte prejudikat, AI-träning.
Summary judgment for Meta on fair use on this record because the plaintiffs did not show market harm; the court stressed that the ruling does not make such training lawful in general.
- Agent:
- agent:us:copyright:agent-sec-107
- Noder:
- Fair use som noder
- Källa:
- 17 U.S.C. §107, läst 2026-10-10
Kopplingen mellan avgöranden, faktorer och kontroller är redaktionell och finns i NovaCopilot med partnernyckel. Source: NovaCopilot.