DOCSLIB.ORG

Patent Use Exception for User-Generated Inventions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Patent Use Exception for User-Generated Inventions “PATENT USE EXCEPTION FOR USER-GENERATED INVENTIONS. THE MAKER MOVEMENT MEETS PATENT LAW” Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde einer Hohen Juristischen Fakultät der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität zu München vorgelegt von Natalia Weronika Lukaszewicz 2015 Referent: Prof. Dr. Annette Kur Korreferent: Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Thomas Jaeger, LL.M. Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 20. Juni 2016 2 CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH ................................................................................................... 7 1.1 RESEARCH CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................. 9 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................. 10 1.4 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................................. 12 1.5 COMPOSITION OF THE WORK ........................................................................................................................... 13 CHAPTER 2. WHO ARE MAKERS? ..................................................................................................................14 2.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 14 2.2 THE CONCEPT OF INNOVATION ......................................................................................................................... 15 2.2.1 The Degree of Departure ................................................................................................................... 18 2.2.2 The Offer of Makers .......................................................................................................................... 19 2.3 MAKING A PLACE FOR MAKERS ........................................................................................................................ 22 2.3.1 Historical Insight ................................................................................................................................ 22 2.3.2 Intangible Resources – Speed instead of Size ................................................................................... 25 2.3.3 Embedding Customer Knowledge into Business Strategies .............................................................. 27 2.3.3.1 The Concepts of Co-creation and Co-production ........................................................................................ 27 2.3.3.2 DIYers and Technological Makers ............................................................................................................... 29 2.4 AN ESCAPE FROM LABELLING – CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MOVEMENT ..................................................................... 32 2.4.1 Communities ..................................................................................................................................... 32 2.4.2 Open Sharing ..................................................................................................................................... 33 2.5 THE ADOPTED MODEL OF MAKING ................................................................................................................... 36 2.6 THE MAKER MOVEMENT MEETS PATENT LAW .................................................................................................... 38 2.6.1 3D Systems Inc. v Formlabs and Kickstarter ...................................................................................... 38 2.6.2 Stratasys v Afinia ............................................................................................................................... 39 2.7 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ................................................................................................................................ 41 CHAPTER 3. QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PATENT SYSTEM .................................................................................43 3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 43 3.2 THE BRIEF HISTORY OF PATENTS ....................................................................................................................... 44 3.3 CHOSEN PATENT THEORIES .............................................................................................................................. 47 3.3.1 Patent as a Natural Property Right .................................................................................................... 47 3.3.2 Patent as an Incentive to Invest ........................................................................................................ 48 3.3.3 Patent as an Incentive to Disclose ..................................................................................................... 49 3.3.4 Reward (Compensation) Theory ........................................................................................................ 49 3.3.5 The Prospect Theory.......................................................................................................................... 50 3 3.3.6 Theory versus Practice. Concluding Thoughts ................................................................................... 51 3.4 MAKERS IN THE FIELD OF PATENTS ..................................................................................................................... 52 3.4.1 Natural Property ................................................................................................................................ 52 3.4.2 Monopoly & Prospect........................................................................................................................ 54 3.4.3 Disclosure .......................................................................................................................................... 54 3.4.5 Patent Scope...................................................................................................................................... 56 3.4.6 Patent Term ....................................................................................................................................... 57 3.4.7 Patent Quality .................................................................................................................................... 58 3.4.8 Patentable Subject Matters ............................................................................................................... 62 3.4.9 The Patent Landscape ....................................................................................................................... 66 3.5 CONCLUDING THOUGHTS ................................................................................................................................ 71 CHAPTER 4. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PATENT EXCEPTIONS ...................................................................73 4.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 73 4.2 THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AS THE INTERNATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR PATENT EXCEPTIONS ............................................ 75 4.2.1 Limited Exceptions to the Effect of a Patent – Article 30 TRIPS ........................................................ 78 4.2.2 The Three-step Test for Patents ........................................................................................................ 80 4.2.2.1 The First Step – Limited Exception .............................................................................................................. 81 4.2.2.2 The Second Step – Normal Exploitation ...................................................................................................... 83 4.2.2.3 The Third Step – Legitimate Interest ........................................................................................................... 84 4.2.2.4 Concluding Thoughts .................................................................................................................................. 85 4.3 THE EUROPEAN CATALOGUE OF EXCEPTIONS ....................................................................................................... 85 4.4 GENERAL PROFILES OF THE COMPARED PATENT SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 92 4.5 STATUTORY LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................................. 95 4.5.1 Private and Non-commercial Use ...................................................................................................... 95 4.5.2 Experimental Use .............................................................................................................................. 99 4.5.2.1. Germany .................................................................................................................................................. 100 4.5.2.2 The United Kingdom ................................................................................................................................. 102 4.5.2.3 The United States .....................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Diybio Things: Open Source Biology Tools As Platforms for Hybrid Knowledge Production and Scientific Participation
    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Previously Published Works Title DIYbio things: Open source biology tools as platforms for hybrid knowledge production and scientific participation Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/90h1s0hf ISBN 9781450331456 Authors Kuznetsov, S Doonan, C Wilson, N et al. Publication Date 2015-04-18 DOI 10.1145/2702123.2702235 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Social Media & Citizen Science CHI 2015, Crossings, Seoul, Korea DIYbio Things: Open Source Biology Tools as Platforms for Hybrid Knowledge Production and Scientific Participation Stacey Kuznetsov1, Carrie Doonan2, Nathan Wilson2, Swarna Mohan2, Scott E. Hudson1, Eric Paulos3 Human-Computer Interaction Institute1 Department of Biological Sciences Electrical Engineering and Carnegie Mellon University Carnegie Mellon University2 Computer Sciences3 Pittsburgh, PA, USA Pittsburgh, PA, USA University of California {stace, hudson}@cmu.edu {cbd, njwilson, Berkeley, CA, USA swm}@andrew.cmu.edu [email protected] ABSTRACT members of the general public in various practices that DIYbio (Do It Yourself Biology) is a growing movement of interpret, critique, and construct scientific knowledge. scientists, hobbyists, artists, and tinkerers who practice biology outside of professional settings. In this paper, we One way of orienting this space for HCI is in terms of present our work with several open source DIYbio tools, publics—groups of people who come together around including OpenPCR and Pearl Blue Transilluminator, issues and work towards resolving shared concerns [5]. which can be used to test DNA samples for specific Within this larger framing, we focus on DIYbio (Do It sequences.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Do It Yourself Biotechnology' (Diybio) for Open, Inclusive
    Do-it-Yourself Healthcare Clinic. Credit: Waag Society ‘Do It Yourself Biotechnology’ (DIYBio) for open, inclusive, responsible Biotechnology This policy brief assesses the potential and challenges of 1) Potential for Inclusivity and Openness in Science “Do-It-Yourself Biotechnology” (DIYBio) for the progression Practitioners of DIYBio, also known as biohackers or DIYBi- of Open Science and Responsible Research and Innovation ologists, aim to ultimately make biotechnology accessible (RRI). It makes recommendations to the European Commis- to anyone. This rapidly growing culture of inclusivity, which sion as to how it can integrate DIYBio into existing science emerged in the United States in the early 2000s, challeng- funding mechanisms and regulatory directives, thereby max- es more conventional academic and industry structures, by imising benefits for European stakeholders. promoting complete access to scientific resources such as in- struments, laboratories and publications. DIYBio activities are conducted in various private and public laboratories outside of traditional academic or corporate in- The aim for a more inclusive and transparent science is also stitutions and are therefore outside the scope of current poli- a key component of the Responsible Research and Innova- cy. The full spectrum of DIYBio activities is also much broader tion10 and Open Science11 policy agendas promoted by the than what is currently understood as Citizen Science. European Commission. As a community built around these values from its inception, the DIYBio movement can be a val- The re-evaluation of funding mechanisms and regulations for uable model for academia as it undergoes a transition to a DIYBio should: more open practice. Case Study 1 (below) describes how the DIYBio space “BioTehna” operationalised openness and inclu- • promote inclusiveness and openness in science, siveness.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Sustain Technology and Make It Profitable While Avoiding IP Conflicts
    How to sustain technology and make it profitable while avoiding IP conflicts Harvard Biotechnology Journal Club meeting, Feb 22nd 2017 Julian Daich, fellow at the Wound Healing and Tissue Engineering Lab, BWH, supervised by Dennis Orgill Patents First established in Venice in 1450, patents are a set of exclusive rights granted by a sovereign state to an inventor or assignee for a limited period of time in exchange for detailed public disclosure of an invention Source: Wikipedia A patent – grants a monopoly over a technological niche – does not guarantee freedom to operate – standard formal structure ● State of the art ● Full description of the invention with examples ● Claims- sentences that define the scope to be enforced a patent application has to show novelty and non obviousness – Empowerment. Patents are a legal basis for priority access to a technological niche – Freedom. Patents are a legal stamp that guarantees protection from other patents Defensive vs offensive ● Big corps dealing with ● Big corps pursuing to many technologies and monopolize a niche parties ● Newcomers attempting ● Newcomers attempting to capture a niche to access to an existing ● Non practitioners niche ● Patent trolls ● Technological standards and frameworks ● Can either accelerate or stop innovation ● Do not harm innovation Patent SWOT ● Strengths ● Weakness – Empower to develop – Discourage making new technology developments or – Encourage to share improvements to already knowledge patented technology ● Opportunities ● Threats – Create new technological – Ambigous patents can niches and markets be used to block technology development or to obtain economical benefits at expenses of authentic innovation Patentleft ● Person A has a patent, and licenses it under a patentleft license.
    [Show full text]
  • Fair Use FAQ for Students
    Fair Use FAQ for Students What is copyright? How is it different from using proper attribution and avoiding plagiarism? Copyright is actually a limited bundle of rights that the government grants to authors of original works such as novels, plays, essays, and movies. For a limited time (currently the life of the author plus 70 years, in most cases), copyright gives the author control over who can copy, distribute, publicly perform or display, or create derivative works (such as sequels or translations) based on their work. The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation and dissemination of new works for the benefit of the public. Copyright is therefore much broader than the norms against plagiarism. Plagiarism is the presentation of someone else’s work as one’s own; copyright infringement can take place even where the user is honest about the work’s true author. As long as you use proper attribution, plagiarism should not be a worry for you. Copyright is somewhat more complex: unless your use satisfies one of the exceptions or limitations described in the Copyright Act, you cannot use copyright protected material without permission. Fair use is one of the most important limitations to copyright. What is fair use? Fair use is a part of copyright law that allows certain uses of copyrighted works, such as making and distributing copies of protected material, without permission. It evolved over time as judges made case-by-case exceptions to copyright to accommodate uses that seemed legitimate and justifiable regardless of the copyright holder’s apparent rights. Typical early fair uses involved criticism, commentary, and uses in an educational or scholarly context.
    [Show full text]
  • Hackerspaces and Diybio in Asia: Connecting Science and Community with Open Data, Kits and Protocols
    Journal of Peer Production New perspectives on the implications of peer production for social change http://peerproduction.net Hackerspaces and DIYbio in Asia: connecting science and community with open data, kits and protocols Denisa Kera Abstract: Different hacker, maker and DIY activities in recent years form a global culture with alternative networks of knowledge production and sharing, offering a more resilient and pragmatic response to various challenges. This growth of grassroots science and tinkering based on open data, protocols and DIY kits is often understood as part of a geek culture, which has little if any impact on the larger society. The aim here is to discuss hackerspaces as intermediaries and transnational sites offering unique opportunities for translation between scientific knowledge produced in the labs (official academic and research institutions) and the everyday interests, practices and problems of ordinary people in diverse local contexts around the globe. To demonstrate how hackerspaces function as sites of complex negotiations between various forms of knowledge and practice, and to understand how these global flows of kits and DIY protocols work in the local context, we will compare several examples from Asia (Indonesia, Singapore, and Japan). These emergent, alternative R&D centers revive a link between knowledge creation and community building, and problematize the common, “East - West”, “Modern (Industrial) - Post-industrial - Pre-modern (indigenous)” distinctions, often used when knowledge transfer is discussed. By integrating community building with prototype testing, hackerspaces embody a community based innovation that provides a more resilient policy model for societies facing emerging technologies and numerous deep and far reaching environmental and social challenges.
    [Show full text]
  • Inhibiting Patent Trolling: a New Approach for Applying Rule 11 Eric Rogers Molecular Templates, Inc
    Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Volume 12 | Issue 4 Article 2 2014 Inhibiting Patent Trolling: A New Approach for Applying Rule 11 Eric Rogers Molecular Templates, Inc. Young Jeon e-Litecom Co., Ltd. Recommended Citation Eric Rogers and Young Jeon, Inhibiting Patent Trolling: A New Approach for Applying Rule 11, 12 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 291 (2014). https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njtip/vol12/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property by an authorized editor of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law Scholarly Commons. NORTHWESTERN JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Inhibiting Patent Trolling: A New Approach for Applying Rule 11 Eric Rogers & Young Jeon November 2014 VOL. 12, NO. 4 © 2014 by Northwestern University School of Law Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Copyright 2014 by Northwestern University School of Law Volume 12, Number 4 (November 2014) Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property Inhibiting Patent Trolling: A New Approach for Applying Rule 11 By Eric Rogers & Young Jeon* There has been an alarming rise in the number of litigious entities—commonly referred to as patent trolls or non-practicing entities—that make no products but file dubious patent infringement lawsuits merely to extract money from commercially productive companies. High litigation costs provide a fertile environment for an exploitive business model that uses shotgun tactics to threaten patent infringement claims against numerous companies, many of which will make a purely financial decision to pay patent trolls rather than expend even more money in litigation.
    [Show full text]
  • Build Your Own Lab: Do-It-Yourself Biology and the Rise of Citizen Biotech-Economies Morgan Meyer
    Build your own lab: Do-it-yourself biology and the rise of citizen biotech-economies Morgan Meyer To cite this version: Morgan Meyer. Build your own lab: Do-it-yourself biology and the rise of citizen biotech-economies. Journal of Peer Production, 2012, 2 (online), 4 p. hal-00710829 HAL Id: hal-00710829 https://hal-mines-paristech.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00710829 Submitted on 28 Jun 2013 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Build your own lab » Journal of Peer Production http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-2/invited-comments/build-... ABOUT ISSUES PEER REVIEW NEWS CONTACT NEW PERSPECTIVES ON THE IMPLICATIONS OF PEER PRODUCTION FOR SOCIAL CHANGE BUILD YOUR OWN LAB Where you are: Home · Issues · Issue #2: Bio/Hardware Hacking · Invited Comments · Build your own lab BUILD YOUR OWN LAB: DO-IT-YOURSELF BIOLOGY AND THE RISE OF CITIZEN BIOTECH-ECONOMIES MORGAN MEYER 1. INTRODUCTION Most articles on garage biology and do-it-yourself (DIY) biology – whether academic papers or media reports – highlight its somewhat “immaterial” cultures or ideologies. The issues usually raised include: the ways in which do-it-yourself biology potentially democratizes science and fosters a citizen science (Wolinsky, 2009), that its practitioners are a “creative proof of the hacker principle” (Ledford, 2010: 650), that the field is an illustration of the open source movement, that concerns about control, security and safety need to be addressed (Sawyer, 2011).
    [Show full text]
  • Survey of Additional Ip and Technology Law Developments
    SURVEY OF ADDITIONAL IP AND TECHNOLOGY LAW DEVELOPMENTS I. PATENT DEVELOPMENTS A. HELSINN HEALTHCARE S.A. V. TEVA PHARMS. USA, INC., 855 F.3 D 1356 (FED. CIR. 2017) The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held (1) that the asserted claims of the patents-in-suit were subject to an invalidating contract for sale prior to the critical date, (2) that the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) did not change the statutory meaning of “on-sale” of the on-sale bar provision of 35 U.S.C. § 102 of the Patent Act, and (3) that public disclosure of the existence of the sale of a patented item may suffice to invalidate a patent under the on-sale bar, even if “the details of the invention” are not “publicly disclosed in the terms of sale.”1 In 2011, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (collectively, “Teva”) filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking FDA approval to market a generic 0.25 mg palonosetron product. Teva’s ANDA filing included a Paragraph IV certification that the claims of the patents-in-suit were invalid and/or not infringed. Helsinn Healthcare S.A. (“Helsinn”) then brought suit under the Hatch-Waxman Act, 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A), alleging infringement of the patents-in-suit by the ANDA filing. The four patents-in-suit are directed to intravenous formulations of palonosetron for reducing or reducing the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a serious side effect of chemotherapy treatment.2 At trial, Teva argued, inter alia, that the asserted claims were invalid under the on-sale bar provision of 35 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Issues
    LEGAL ISSUES Section Editors: Bruce Strauch (The Citadel) <[email protected]> Jack Montgomery (Western Kentucky University) <[email protected]> Legally Speaking — Librarians, Publishers, and Educators Help out During the Coronavirus Pandemic by Anthony Paganelli (Western Kentucky University) <[email protected]> s a light spring rain falls, I am Samaritans are contributing to aiding those es online or as they distributed printed currently writing this column in need and others are helping the best way copies to students without computers or Ain my home while my wife is that they possibly can. Internet access. Some librarians have conducting a Zoom meeting with her provided information via email, telephone, It was a very difficult situation. Natu- colleagues, and the children are doing video conferencing, websites, and through rally, humans want to be helpful, but when school work on their devices. I joked blogs. The University of Florida has you are told that you could do more harm with them that their new at home school is even created a Coronavirus Library Guide by reaching out and helping, it becomes called the “School of Constant Sorrow.” that has provided information for faculty frustrating and depressing when you can’t. Of course, I thought it was funny, but they regarding copyright as they transitioned However, we are all doing the best we can just rolled their eyes. Now it is called, the their course assignments online. This is a through the knowledge and experiences “Paganelli Learning Academy.” major way librarians are assisting teachers that each of us possess. For instance, and students.
    [Show full text]
  • Circular 73B Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Digital Phonorecords
    CIRCULAR 73B Compulsory License for Making and Distributing Digital Phonorecords and Limitations on Liability Prior to the License Availability Date (January 21, 2021) Copyright law provides a compulsory Under section 115 of the Copyright Act, an individual or license for making and distributing entity, subject to certain terms and conditions, may make digital phonorecord deliveries (DPDs) of nondramatic musi- phonorecords of certain nondramatic cal works if they have already been distributed as phonore- musical works. This circular addresses cords to the public in the United States under the authority of the copyright owner. When this condition does not exist, a the compulsory license for digital digital music provider may still make and distribute a DPD phonorecord deliveries (DPDs) and of a musical work if it satisfies three criteria: limitation on liability for making DPDs 1. the first fixation of the sound recording embodied in available prior to January 1, 2021. the DPD was made under the authority of the musical work copyright owner; It covers: 2. the sound recording copyright owner has the author- • When a compulsory license ity of the musical work copyright owner to make and can be used distribute digital phonorecord deliveries of such musi- cal work to the public; and • Activities covered by the compulsory 3. the sound recording copyright owner authorizes license and limitation on liability the digital music provider to make and distribute • Eligibility for limitation on liability digital phonorecord deliveries of the sound record- • When royalties must be paid ing to the public. For information on the compulsory NOTE: A nondramatic musical work is an original work of license for non-DPD phonorecords, authorship consisting of music—the succession of pitches and rhythm—and any accompanying lyrics not created for see Compulsory License for Making use in a motion picture or dramatic work.
    [Show full text]
  • Compulsory Licensing of Musical Compositions for Phonorecords Under the Copyright Act of 1976 Paul S
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 30 | Issue 3 Article 7 1-1979 Compulsory Licensing of Musical Compositions for Phonorecords under the Copyright Act of 1976 Paul S. Rosenlund Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Paul S. Rosenlund, Compulsory Licensing of Musical Compositions for Phonorecords under the Copyright Act of 1976, 30 Hastings L.J. 683 (1979). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol30/iss3/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Compulsory Licensing of Musical Compositions for Phonorecords Under the Copyright Act of 1976 By PaulS. Rosenlund* In 1976, Congress revised the copyright law of the United States for the first time in sixty-seven years.' As in 1909, when the previous copyright law was passed, one of the more controversial subjects of the 1976 Act was compulsory licensing of musical compositions for repro- duction in sound recordings. Basically, compulsory licensing under both the 1909 and 1976 Acts requires a music publisher to license a record company to manufacture and distribute phonorecords of most copyrighted music. To obtain such a license, a record company need only follow certain notice procedures and pay the modest mechanical 2 royalty specified in the compulsory licensing statute. The procedures which governed the availability and operation of compulsory licenses under the 1909 Act were unnecessarily burden- some on both copyright proprietors and the recording industry.
    [Show full text]
  • FAIR USE of COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL an Informative Guide
    FAIR USE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL An informative guide FAIR USE OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL An informative guide Prepared by the Salt Lake Community College General Counsel’s Office Q: What is "fair use"? A: Fair use is the right to use a copyrighted work under certain conditions without permission of the copyright owner. The doctrine helps prevent a rigid application of copyright law that would stifle the very creativity the law is designed to foster. It allows one to use and build upon prior works in a manner that does not unfairly deprive prior copyright owners of the right to control and benefit from their works. Together with other features of copyright law, fair use reconciles the copyright statute with the First Amendment. Q: What is the test for fair use? A: The fair use defense is now codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act. It is a defense that is mounted when a challenge to fair use is made. There is no need to make or draft an argument for fair use absent the legal challenge to such use. The statute provides that fair use of a work “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use, scholarship, or research)” is not an infringement of copyright. To determine whether a given use is fair use, the statute directs, one must consider the following four factors: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3.
    [Show full text]