Resources

Copyrighted Works Reproduced on Websites - Fair Use?
June 2005 | Intellectual Property & Technology | IP Edge

Many entities generally assume that they are entitled to copy and reproduce materials such as newspaper articles, pictures, drawings and map images on their websites, simply because they do not make any money by posting such materials. This is a dangerous assumption to make as the materials usually enjoy copyright protection. In this article, we look at one Singapore case and one United States case, both of which prohibit reproduction of copyrighted materials, even where the infringer does not charge the public for access to the copied materials.

Virtual Map (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Suncool International Pte Ltd [2005] SGHC 19
In this case the Singapore court held that a company which reproduced maps on their own website is liable to the creator of the maps for copyright infringement.

Virtual Map Singapore Pte Ltd ("Virtual Map") is in the business of creating and licensing the reproduction and/or use of digital raster street maps of Singapore, contained in its website at www.streetdirectory.com. Suncool International Pte Ltd ("Suncool") is a company in the business of installing solar control films. Suncool copied, without the plaintiff's consent, a map image from www.streetdirtectory.com showing the location of Suncool's premises and reproduced this map image on Suncool's website at www.suncool.com.sg.

The court held that the map image enjoyed copyright protection and that copying of the map image was not de minimis copying. As Suncool had admitted that the map image was copied from the Virtual Map's website, the court found that Suncool had committed copyright infringement.

Los Angeles Times v Free Republic, 2000 U.S. Dist
In this case, the US court ruled that a company which reproduced newspaper articles on its website to encourage online commentary is liable to the newspaper company for copyright infringement.

The defendant, Free Republic, did not dispute that it had copied the articles. However, Free Republic claimed that such copying and reproduction was fair use and as such a valid defence to copyright infringement. The "fair use" doctrine, which also applies in Singapore, allows reproduction of copyrighted materials under limited circumstances. There is no one absolute yardstick to measure if a particular act amounts to fair use. Examining "fair use" requires balancing several factors, including the amount copied, whether it was copied for commercial gain and the effect of the copying on the value of the copyrighted work.

Having reviewed all these factors, the US court rejected Free Republic's fair use defence. In coming to this conclusion, the court noted that many of the articles were copied verbatim and that since the articles remain on Free Republic's website for a long period of time, the public can access old newspaper articles on Free Republic's website for free and instead of paying Los Angeles Times' archive fees.

Comments
The public needs to understand that copying and reproducing other parties' materials without permission is generally not allowed. The fact that copyrighted materials are uploaded on the Internet for free viewing does not automatically mean that these materials can be reproduced without permission from the copyright owner. Lack of direct monetary benefit to the infringer is also not in itself a valid defence to copyright infringement. Because the defence of fair use is dependant on a balance of many factors, it is often extremely difficult for anyone to determine, in advance and for certain, whether an act amounts to fair use. The best and most advisable course of action is to ask for permission before copying and reproducing any works.