Changes

Fair use does not apply to items that are in the "[[public domain]]" because there is no copyright holder, but physical access to the works may be controlled by a museum that does not allow reproductions. Texts and images published in the U.S. before January 1, 1923 are in the public domain. Work created by the federal government is in the public domain (but not work created by state of local governments). Before 1976 copyright expired after 28 years and had to be renewed; items that were not renewed are in the public domain.<ref>For a list of renewals see the Project Gutenberg collections at [http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=11800], which cover everything except music.</ref> Items that were published in the USA but never copyright in the first place are in the public domain in the USA. Items posted on web servers in the U.S. are covered only by American law.

Fair use does not apply to items that are in the "[[public domain]]" because there is no copyright holder, but physical access to the works may be controlled by a museum that does not allow reproductions. Texts and images published in the U.S. before January 1, 1923 are in the public domain. Work created by the federal government is in the public domain (but not work created by state of local governments). Before 1976 copyright expired after 28 years and had to be renewed; items that were not renewed are in the public domain.<ref>For a list of renewals see the Project Gutenberg collections at [http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=11800], which cover everything except music.</ref> Items that were published in the USA but never copyright in the first place are in the public domain in the USA. Items posted on web servers in the U.S. are covered only by American law.

==Rationale==

==Rationale==

The U.S. Constitution's copyright clause allows a work to be copied in the public interest (to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts") without the permission of the copyright holder. Since the primary purpose of copyright is to foster the dissemination of knowledge rather than to protect the property rights of the creator, U.S. courts decided users could make "fair use" of a creator's work in the interest of promoting knowledge, so long as the impact on the creator's rights was not too great. Over the years the courts established factors to be weighed when judging whether a use was fair in any particular case. From the 1940s to the 1970s, when protection of property rights became progressively less important to judges compared to the promotion of other social interests, the courts broadened the definition of fair use. Therefore scholars had few problems quoting or photocopying reasonable amounts from the published works of others. Fair use doctrine is also supposed to protect free speech by preventing copyright holders from denying critics the right to quote from that which they are criticizing.  

The U.S. Constitution's copyright clause allows a work to be copied in the public interest (to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts") without the permission of the copyright holder. Since the primary purpose of copyright is to foster the dissemination of knowledge rather than to protect the property rights of the creator, U.S. courts decided users could make "fair use" of a creator's work in the interest of promoting knowledge, so long as the impact on the creator's rights was not too great. Over the years the courts established factors to be weighed when judging whether a use was fair in any particular case. From the 1940s to the 1970s, when protection of property rights became progressively less important to judges compared to the promotion of other social interests, the courts broadened the definition of fair use. Therefore, scholars had few problems quoting or photocopying reasonable amounts from the published works of others. Fair use doctrine is also supposed to protect free speech by preventing copyright holders from denying critics the right to quote from that which they are criticizing.  

However newer court decisions have limited the right of scholars to quote from unpublished sources, such as private diaries or letters held in an archive, allowing the copyright owner to censor interpretations it does not approve.<ref>Michael Les Benedict, "Historians and the Continuing Controversy over Fair Use of Unpublished Manuscript Materials." ''American Historical Review'' 1986 91(4): 859-881. Full text: [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28198610%2991%3A4%3C859%3AHATCCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R  in JSTOR]; Michael Les Benedict, "Copyright I: 'Fair Use' of Unpublished Sources," ''AHA Perspctives'' (April 1990) online at [http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/1990/9004/9004NOTE1.cfm]; Kathleen K. Olson, "First Amendment Values in Fair Use Analysis." ''Journalism & Communication Monographs'' 2004 5(4): 159-202. Issn: 1522-6379</ref>  Patrick Parrinder argues, "Without the act of quotation there is little possibility of free discussion, rational debate or open reporting. Direct and acknowledged quotation is essential to scholarship since it provides both quoter and quotee with a guarantee against misrepresentation."<ref>Patrick Parrinder, "Quote unquote" ''Textual Practice'' 14#1 (2000) p. 138</ref>

However newer court decisions have limited the right of scholars to quote from unpublished sources, such as private diaries or letters held in an archive, allowing the copyright owner to censor interpretations it does not approve.<ref>Michael Les Benedict, "Historians and the Continuing Controversy over Fair Use of Unpublished Manuscript Materials." ''American Historical Review'' 1986 91(4): 859-881. Full text: [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8762%28198610%2991%3A4%3C859%3AHATCCO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-R  in JSTOR]; Michael Les Benedict, "Copyright I: 'Fair Use' of Unpublished Sources," ''AHA Perspctives'' (April 1990) online at [http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/1990/9004/9004NOTE1.cfm]; Kathleen K. Olson, "First Amendment Values in Fair Use Analysis." ''Journalism & Communication Monographs'' 2004 5(4): 159-202. Issn: 1522-6379</ref>  Patrick Parrinder argues, "Without the act of quotation there is little possibility of free discussion, rational debate or open reporting. Direct and acknowledged quotation is essential to scholarship since it provides both quoter and quotee with a guarantee against misrepresentation."<ref>Patrick Parrinder, "Quote unquote" ''Textual Practice'' 14#1 (2000) p. 138</ref>