Editing Copyright (section)

== Limitations and exceptions ==
{{Main|Limitations and exceptions to copyright }}

In many jurisdictions, copyright law makes exceptions to these restrictions when the work is copied for the purpose of commentary or other related uses. United States copyright law does not cover names, titles, short phrases or listings (such as ingredients, recipes, labels, or formulas).<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf |archive-date=9 October 2022 |url-status=live|title=Works Not Protected by Copyright |date=2021 |publisher= U.S. Copyright Office}}</ref> However, there are protections available for those areas copyright does not cover, such as [[trademark]]s and [[patent]]s.

=== Idea–expression dichotomy and the merger doctrine ===
{{Main|Idea–expression divide }}

The idea–expression divide differentiates between ideas and expression, and states that copyright protects only the original expression of ideas, and not the ideas themselves. This principle, first clarified in the 1879 case of ''[[Baker v. Selden]]'', has since been codified by the ''[[Copyright Act of 1976]]'' at 17 U.S.C. §&nbsp;102(b).

=== The first-sale doctrine and exhaustion of rights ===

{{Main|First-sale doctrine |Exhaustion of rights }}
Copyright law does not restrict the owner of a copy from reselling legitimately obtained copies of copyrighted works, provided that those copies were originally produced by or with the permission of the copyright holder. It is therefore legal, for example, to resell a copyrighted book or [[compact disc|CD]]. In the United States this is known as the [[first-sale doctrine]], and was established by the [[court]]s to clarify the legality of reselling books in second-hand [[bookstore]]s.

Some countries may have [[parallel importation]] restrictions that allow the copyright holder to control the [[aftermarket (merchandise)|aftermarket]]. This may mean for example that a copy of a book that does not infringe copyright in the country where it was printed does infringe copyright in a country into which it is imported for retailing. The first-sale doctrine is known as [[exhaustion of rights]] in other countries and is a principle which also applies, though somewhat differently, to [[patent]] and [[trademark]] rights. While this doctrine permits the transfer of the particular legitimate copy involved, it does not permit making or distributing additional copies.

In ''[[Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.]]'',<ref>{{cite web |title=11-697 Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. |website=Supreme Court of the United States |url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170702033641/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf |archive-date=2 July 2017 }}</ref> in 2013, the [[United States Supreme Court]] held in a 6–3 decision that the first-sale doctrine applies to goods manufactured abroad with the copyright owner's permission and then imported into the US without such permission. The case involved a plaintiff who imported Asian editions of textbooks that had been manufactured abroad with the publisher-plaintiff's permission. The defendant, without permission from the publisher, imported the textbooks and resold on [[eBay]]. The Supreme Court's holding severely limits the ability of copyright holders to prevent such importation.

In addition, copyright, in most cases, does not prohibit one from acts such as modifying, defacing, or destroying one's own legitimately obtained copy of a copyrighted work, so long as duplication is not involved. However, in countries that implement [[Moral rights (copyright law)|moral rights]], a copyright holder can in some cases successfully prevent the mutilation or destruction of a work that is publicly visible.

=== Fair use and fair dealing ===
{{Main|Fair use |Fair dealing }}
Copyright does not prohibit all copying or replication. In the United States, the [[fair use]] doctrine, codified by the [[United States Copyright Act of 1976|''Copyright Act of 1976'']] as 17 U.S.C. Section 107, permits some copying and distribution without permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are:
# the purpose and character of one's use;
# the nature of the copyrighted work;
# what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken;
# the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html |title=17 U.S. Code § 107 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use  |publisher=Legal Information Institute |access-date=16 June 2009 }}</ref>

In the [[United Kingdom]] and many other [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] countries, a similar notion of fair dealing was established by the [[court]]s or through [[legislation]]. The concept is sometimes not well defined; however, in [[Canada]], private copying for personal use has been expressly permitted by statute since 1999. In ''[[Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright)]]'', 2012 SCC 37, the [[Supreme Court of Canada]] concluded that limited copying for educational purposes could also be justified under the fair dealing exemption. In Australia, the fair dealing exceptions under the ''[[Copyright Act 1968]]'' (Cth) are a limited set of circumstances under which copyrighted material can be legally copied or adapted without the copyright holder's consent. Fair dealing uses are research and study; review and critique; news reportage and the giving of professional advice (i.e. [[legal advice]]). Under current [[Law of Australia|Australian law]], although it is still a breach of copyright to copy, reproduce or adapt copyright material for personal or private use without permission from the copyright owner, owners of a legitimate copy are permitted to "format shift" that work from one medium to another for personal, private use, or to "time shift" a broadcast work for later, once and only once, viewing or listening. Other technical exemptions from infringement may also apply, such as the temporary reproduction of a work in machine readable form for a computer.

In the United States the AHRA (''[[Audio Home Recording Act]]'' Codified in Section 10, 1992) prohibits action against consumers making noncommercial recordings of music, in return for [[royalties]] on both media and devices plus mandatory copy-control mechanisms on recorders.

{{blockquote|Section 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.}}

Later acts amended US copyright law so that for certain purposes making 10 copies or more is construed to be commercial, but there is no general rule permitting such copying. Indeed, making one complete copy of a work, or in many cases using a portion of it, for commercial purposes will not be considered fair use. The ''[[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]]'' prohibits the manufacture, importation, or distribution of devices whose intended use, or only significant commercial use, is to bypass an access or copy control put in place by a copyright owner.<ref name="yu-2006"/><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf |title=The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 - U.S. Copyright Office Summary |date=December 1998 |publisher=Copyright Office |access-date=7 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031008155729/https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf |archive-date=8 October 2003}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.ala.org/advocacy/copyright/dmca |title=DMCA: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act |website=American Library Association |access-date=7 November 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120319192433/https://www.ala.org/advocacy/copyright/dmca |archive-date=19 March 2012}}</ref> An appellate court has held that fair use is not a defense to engaging in such distribution.{{citation needed|reason=Undocumented claim|date=February 2022}} In ''[[Lenz v. Universal Music Corp.]],'' the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit]] affirmed the lower court decision, holding that "fair use is 'authorized by the law' and a copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification" under the ''Digital Millennium Copyright Act''.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145 |url=https://casetext.com/case/lenz-v-universal-music-corp-17 |access-date=2024-08-24 |website=Casetext Search + Citator }}</ref> 

[[Copyright law of the European Union|EU copyright laws]] recognise the right of EU member states to implement some national exceptions to copyright. Examples of those exceptions are:
* photographic reproductions on paper or any similar medium of works (excluding sheet music) provided that the rightholders receives fair compensation;
* reproduction made by libraries, educational establishments, museums or archives, which are non-commercial;
* archival reproductions of broadcasts;
* uses for the benefit of people with a disability;
* for demonstration or repair of equipment;
* for non-commercial research or private study;
* when used in [[parody]].

=== Accessible copies ===
It is legal in several countries including the United Kingdom and the United States to produce alternative versions (for example, in large print or braille) of a copyrighted work to provide improved access to a work for blind and visually impaired people without permission from the copyright holder.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#121 |title=Chapter 1 – Circular 92  |website=U.S. Copyright Office |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240826072748/http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#121 |archive-date= 2024-08-26 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/public_cvipsact2002.hcsp |title=Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons) Act 2002 |publisher=Royal National Institute of Blind People |date=1 January 2011 |access-date=11 August 2016 |archive-date=7 September 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090907085056/http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/PublicWebsite/public_CVIPsAct2002.hcsp |url-status=dead }}</ref>

=== Religious Service Exemption ===
In the US there is a Religious Service Exemption (1976 law, section 110[3]), namely "performance of a non-dramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatico-musical work of a religious nature or display of a work, in the course of services at a place of worship or other religious assembly" shall not constitute infringement of copyright.<ref>[https://www.copyright.gov/reports/guide-to-copyright.pdf "General Guide to the Copyright Act of 1976", US Copyright Office, ch.8, p.11, September 1977].</ref>

=== Useful articles ===
In Canada, items deemed ''useful articles'' such as clothing designs are exempted from copyright protection under the ''[[Copyright Act (Canada)|Copyright Act]]'' if reproduced more than 50 times.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Monastero |first1=Alessia |title=More Than Just a Trend: The Copyright Protection of Fashion Designs |url=https://www.oba.org/JUST/Practice_List/2019/More-than-Just-a-Trend-The-Copyright-Protection-o |date=December 5, 2019 |website=Ontario Bar Association |access-date=31 August 2023 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230831013915/https://www.oba.org/JUST/Practice_List/2019/More-than-Just-a-Trend-The-Copyright-Protection-o |archive-date= 31 August 2023 }}</ref> [[Fast fashion]] brands may reproduce clothing designs from smaller companies without violating copyright protections.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Moran |first1=Padraig |url=https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/dupes-online-shopping-fast-fashion-1.6908904 |date=Jul 17, 2023 |title=Dupes offer cheap fashion to Canadians, but small businesses say they're paying the price|website=CBC Radio |access-date=31 August 2023}}</ref>