Taking radio clips part of free usage?

February 10, 2009 6:24 PM

Could anyone check out this site to see if it adheres to fair use laws?

Hi,

I've been working on a site that looks at the use of the French language. I take clips from radio shows and podcasts and transcribe them with basic explanations. There is no advertising on my site, and there is no method for making money from this.

Technically, I could make reference to every podcast that I take a clip from, but it would get pretty taxing from a paperwork perspective to do so. It would be pretty hard to keep track of.

I've felt like it's ok because even LeMonde has a podcast called LeRadiozapping which takes clips from other radio shows and doesn't cite where they all come from. Here's their site here.

Do you think that this is basically in line with fair use laws? Thanks in advance.

posted by fantasticninety to law & government (5 comments total)

[removed link to the site, please feel free to put it in your profile, thanks]
posted by jessamyn at 6:31 PM on February 10

I've added the site to my profile. I didn't realise including it in the post was against policy - sorry about that.
posted by fantasticninety at 6:39 PM on February 10

Fair use is briefly defined in US statute, but the nature of the judicial interpretation that has sprung up around the relevant provision makes it difficult to predict which way a given case will come out. The different federal circuits have different views about the outer bounds of fair use which then in turn bind the district courts they supervise.

My point is that there really aren't "fair use laws": There is one statutory provision on point, and a body of older common law ideas about things that aren't copyright infringement, and a whole lot of modern judge-created fair use standards. In any situation where you think there is a potential fair use question, you should contact the owner of the material you will be using to seek permission and/or get an opinion from an attorney and/or both.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 7:00 PM on February 10 [1 favorite]

As Inspector.Gadget says fair use is a matter of opinion, not law (on preview a) and my opinion doesn't matter, only the copyright holders and any court that should get involved.

It sounds like your defense is "I don't want to ask because it's a pain." That is not a good defense. Your other defense is "Yeah, well they did it first" which didn't work on my Mom when I was 10 and won't work in court.

Is there a particular reason that you skim from such a large pool? Why not team with one or a small group of podcasts to translate (parts of) them into English? I'd think quite a few would welcome the added exposure.
posted by Ookseer at 7:41 PM on February 10 [2 favorites]

IANAL and neither is Wikipedia, but Wikipedia has a fairly good entry on the basics of Fair Use.

Purpose and character: To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. Check.

Amount and substantiality: The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. Depends what percentage of the original podcasts you're using but if we're talking less than a minute or two out of a substantial podcast, then Check.

Effect upon work's value: The court... investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market. The burden of proof here rests on... the copyright owner for noncommercial uses. Check.

However, I have to say that to use other people's work without attribution is a really, really bad idea. I'd be pissed if someone did that to me. You are not Le Monde and very likely do not have the in-house legal team they employ.

Plus, you know, on your blog you've got like a single clip every two days - how hard can it be to source those properly? This is smacking slightly of the lazy.

Having said all of that, European laws are different than US laws and if you're sourcing from French-as-in-France podcasts, who knows. However, it's important to note that what mostly happens is the pissed off party issues you with a take-down demand of some flavour, demanding that you remove the infringing material. Very rarely is the first step (or even the next step) a lawsuit being served upon you.

If you do get a demand, obviously you should honour it since, you know, the material is not yours. Normally that satisfies the copyright holder and all is well.
posted by DarlingBri at 7:43 PM on February 10