美国法官首次裁决，转贴属于“合理使用（fair use)"

Righthaven Loss: Judge Rules Reposting Entire Article Is Fair Use 8[f]9P/i  
4,FkA_k  
By David Kravets  June 20, 2011  |  4:54 pm  | ;#/b=j\pi  
e@k ti@ZJ  
The Courts, intellectual property A federal judge ruled Monday that publishing an entire article without the rights holder’s authorization was a fair use of the work, in yet another blow to newspaper copyright troll Righthaven. ]
S,I}NP  
'n4zFj+S  
It’s not often that republishing an entire work without permission is deemed fair use. Fair use is an infringement defense when the defendant reproduced a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, commentary, teaching and research. The defense is analyzed on a case-by-case basis.... {FQ dDIj#  
}
?*:uf  
For more: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/06/fair-use-defense/

那如何保护网络文版权呢？

这么说转贴有理? xkUsZ*X8B  
a+\Gz  
理解转贴,转贴万岁!

引用

引用第2樓鐡手於06-27-2011 22:01發表的  : 1Lj\"+.  
這麼說轉貼有理? ?/dz!{JC  
/8W}o/,s5  
理解轉貼,轉貼萬歲! |r0j>F
 

WHE*NWz>q  
 Kn\Oj=4  
版权法的目的是保护原创作品。在此案中，法官指出，被转贴的文章只有5段完全是作者的原创观点（ only five of the editorial’s paragraphs were “purely creative opinions” of the author.），法官同时还指出，转贴只是为了非商业性目的，是网上讨论的一部分（the posting was for noncommercial purposes, and was part of an “online discussion.”）。 h3@mN\=h'  
*WMcE$w/D  
法官还指出，尽管文章具有一些创作和编辑成份，这些成份并不足以导致认为这篇文章在小说，歌词或芭比娃娃 的领域里算完全原创的作品。因此，这篇文章并不在版权法打算保护的核心范围之内（“While the work does have some creative or editorial elements, these elements are not enough to consider the work a purely ‘creative work’ in the realm of fictional stories, song lyrics, or Barbie dolls,” he wrote. “Accordingly, the work is not within ‘the core of intended copyright protection.’”）

谢谢卡总如此详细的答疑讲解，不厌其烦的把英文翻译成中文方便偶们学习…… ctt5t  
?1PY]KNaK  
偶对卡总颈仰感激之情如黄河壶口之水巨浪涛天啊……    ^_^