There is one major content based categorical fair use exemption from copyright. It is for parody. I would propose at least two others:
1. Advocacy. People who are advocating for a view or position want their works to be widely distributed and aren't creating content for the purpose of making a profit. Infringement of copyrights for works of advocacy should be categorically classified as fair use.
2. Scholarship. Academic scholars likewise want their works to be widely disseminated, so long as their works are properly attributed, and earn most of their incomes from salaries as professors or researchers, not from royalties earned on their academic work. Infringement of copyrights for works of academic scholarship that give attribution to the authors should also be categorically classified as fair use.
2 comments:
I don't understand the rationale for "advocacy". I can't think of any case where an author would agree to label their work as such. With this change, there is the obvious economic incentive to reject the advocacy label. There's also a rhetorical incentive for an advocate of some position to label their work as objective, factual, etc.
Do you have any specific examples of "advocacy" in mind?
Say that you are writing a lobbying letter to a legislative committee, or filming a campaign ad, or posting a political meme, or writing an op-ed column in a newspaper, or a letter to the editor, with the intent of persuading people to vote a certain way or to take a position on a particular issue. You want maximum distribution of your message. You aren't in it for the money. These aren't forms of communication that you want to make royalties on.
Post a Comment