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 :/RvtmW  
J{Ld)Q,^  
By David Kravets  June 20, 2011  |  4:54 pm  | ^$RpP+d  
T| R!Aw
.  
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.
=G eGlI6  
uigzf^6,  
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.... n0%S: (  
!<b+7A  
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? N% u4uLP5k  
t$R0UprK  
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  : e%0IEX  
這麼說轉貼有理? cwQ*P$n  
I^D*) z  
理解轉貼,轉貼萬歲! '}F9f?  

Cwji,*  
\D#+0  
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.”）。 8%MF<  
2t=&h|6EW  
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…… F0k
Q/x  
'p%w_VbI  
偶对卡总颈仰感激之情如黄河壶口之水巨浪涛天啊……    ^_^