§2 (1) (i)
Existing law—Reasonable extracts may be taken for the purpose of criticism[1]. The extracts must, however, betaken boná fide for the purpose of criticism, and not for the purpose of enhancing the value of the copyist's work by reproducing the plums from the original work[2].
The following is the definition of "fair use" given by Stephen, J., in the Digest of Copyright Law which he prepared for the Copyright Commission in 1878.
"The only use which an author can lawfully make of a prior copyright work on the same subject is—
- (i) Using the information or the ideas contained in it without copying its words, or imitating them, so as to produce what is substantially a copy[3].
- (ii) Making extracts (even if they are not acknowledged as such) appearing under all the circumstances of the case reasonable in quality, number, and length, regard being had to the objects for which the extracts are made, and to the subjects to which they relate.
- (iii) Using one book on a given subject as a guide to authorities afterwards independently consulted by the author of another book on the same subject.
- (iv) Using one book on a given subject for the purpose of checking the results independently arrived at by the author of another book on the same subject."
Directories and statistics.In the case of directories, compilations of statistics and similar works which are the result of more or less mechanical labour, a subsequent compiler has no right to take the results of the labour and expense incurred by another for the purposes of a rival publication[4]. The compiler of a directory cannot simply cut the slips from another copyright directory, and having verified them by a house-to-house canvass, insert in his own directory the corrected slips[5].
- ↑ Mawman v. Tegg (1826), 2 Russ. 385, 393; Black v. Murray (1870), 9 M. 341, 356; Whittingham v. Wooler (1817), 2 Swanst. 428; Wilkins v. Aikin (1810), 17 Ves. 422; Bell v. Whitehead (1839), 8 L. J. Ch. 141.
- ↑ Roworth v. Wilkes (1807), 1 Camp. 94, 97; Campbell v. Scott (1842), 11 Sim. 31; Smith v. Chatto (1874), 31 L. T. 775.
- ↑ Sayer v. Moore (1785), 1 East, 361, n.; Hogg v. Kirby (1803), 8 Ves. 21.5; Matthewson v. Stockdale (1806), 12 Ves. 270; Mawman v. Tegg (1826), 2 Russ. 385; Pike v. Nicholas (1869), L. R. 5 Ch. 251; Alexander v. Mackenzie (1847), 9 D. 748, 761; Longman v. Winchester (1809), 16 Ves. 269; Wilkins v. Aikin (1810), 17 Ves. 422; Weekes v. Williamson (1886), 12 Vict. L. R. 483; Wilson v. Lake (1875), 1 Vict. L. R. Eq. 127; Lamb v. Evans, [1893] 1 Ch. 218, 224.
- ↑ Longman v. Winchester (1809), 16 Ves. 269; Matthewson v. Stockdale (1806), 1 J. & H. 312; Baily v. Taylor (1829), 1 Russ. & M. 73; Wilkins v. Aikin (1810), 17 Ves. 422, 424; Lewis v. Fullarton (1839), 2 Beav. 6, 8; Jarrold v. Houlston (1857), 3 K. & J. 708, 715; Hotten v. Arthur (1863), 1 H. & M. 603; Kelly v. Morris (1866), L. R. 1 Eq. 697; Hogg v. Scott (1874), L. R. 18 Eq. 444; Scott v. Stanford (1867), L. R. 3 Eq. 718; Garland v. Gemmill (1887), 14 Can. S. C. 321.
- ↑ Morris v. Ashbee (1568), L. R. 7 Eq. 34; Morris v. Wright (1870), L. R. 5 Ch. 279.
