Image talk:MF-Parody-America-TheBook.jpg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think this is fair use, and if it is, it is on the extreme edge of fair use. Also, a copy of the work is not necessary to further the article. A text description of the comic with the text from the cartoon included gets the point across and doesn't come so close to being copyright infringment. Lamont A Cranston 16:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use law in the U.S. asks us to consider:
  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
For the purposes of Wikipedia, we can safely ignore (1). As far as (2) is concerned, the copyrighted work is already a parody of another copyrighted work, and the image is supplied for critical commentary regarding that parody. In terms of (3), we are displaying one small portion of one page in an entire book; so, it is a very small portion. Finally, regarding (4), nobody will purchase America (The Book) just to see this Mallard Fillmore parody, and nobody will confuse its representation on Wikipedia for the actual book, so it will most likely have absolutely no effect upon the book's market value. --AaronS 16:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You make good points, but I think that an independent evaluation is a good idea. I think the fact that it is parody does not mean it is deserving of any less protection. As to the portion used, the very nature of "America (The Book)" means that almost any portion of any page could be reprinted by the logic you have used - it is a 200 page collection of one liners and gag images. I agree that its inclusion here does not act as a substitute for "America (The Book)". I think a court would likely find this fair use - my concern is that Wikipedia has a preference for public domain over fair use. I look forward to discussion of this issue, and I'm sure some Wikipedians more experienced than myself will have some input. Lamont A Cranston 17:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But the very nature of any publication is that any portion of it is essential to the publication as a whole. That's why that provision of copyright law exceptions exists. I could reprint any portion of any page of some book in the Harry Potter series, despite the fact that each portion, J.K. Rowling might argue, is essential to the book.
Regarding preferences, that's all well and good. I'm happy to hear what people have to say, too. --AaronS 17:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)