It's worth noting that Judge Evans actually emphasized that it is legitimate to excerpt an entire chapter (even a chapter written by a different author from the rest of the book) in order to provide students with a context for the material to be discussed. That is, she justified including MORE THAN the smallest possible portion. She also stressed that transformative use of academic materials (i.e. the kind of factual reports involved in the case) is not only not necessary but is precluded by the nature of the materials and the way they are to be used.
There is nothing in the decision, in fact, about video materials, nothing about transformative uses, and nothing about the Section 110 face-to-face + TEACH question. It's all about library e-reserves based on nonfiction books, though obviously Judge Evans's reading of Fair Use is relevant to educational use of media. Judy Shoaf -----Original Message----- Jessica This is patently NOT TRUE. US copyright law identifies amount as one of the four factors in determining whether a use is fair use, but it has NEVER specified that only the smallest possible amount is permissible. deg farrelly ---------- From: Jessica Rosner The Georgia State ruling merely reinforces what has always been true about "fair use" that it is for using the smallest possible portion of a work to create a new one. VIDEOLIB is intended to encourage the broad and lively discussion of issues relating to the selection, evaluation, acquisition,bibliographic control, preservation, and use of current and evolving video formats in libraries and related institutions. It is hoped that the list will serve as an effective working tool for video librarians, as well as a channel of communication between libraries,educational institutions, and video producers and distributors.
