Template:Did you know nominations/Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 00:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.
- ... that in a copyright infringement case over a coffee-table history of the Grateful Dead, the Second Circuit held that a reuser can still claim fair use despite negotiating with the rights holder? Source: "a reuser's willingness to license a work does not preclude it from later claiming fair use", Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd., 448 F.3d 605, 615 (2nd Cir., 2006)
- ALT1: ... that Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd. held that a copyright owner cannot claim market impact from transformative use when alleging infringement? Source: "Since DK's use of BGA's images falls within a transformative market, BGA does not suffer market harm due to the loss of license fees" Id.
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Bankruptcy of Penn Central
- Comment: I would have loved to work out a hook based on this case's impact on our own fair-use criteria, but that would be OR at this point
5x expanded by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 03:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley, Ltd.; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
- explanation desired
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
@Daniel Case: Good article. Though I am worried about the 73.6% similarity earwig reports. Even though a lot is just quotations I'd still like some explaining. Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to me that what isn't quoted matter (which, since it's from a US federal court opinion is in the public domain and thus does not raise any copyright concerns) is commonly used legal phrasings in copyright law. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
If that's the case then i'll approve. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
- It seems to me that what isn't quoted matter (which, since it's from a US federal court opinion is in the public domain and thus does not raise any copyright concerns) is commonly used legal phrasings in copyright law. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
