Proposition One Committee
PO Box 27217
Washington, DC 20038
September 8, 1999
SunSource
501 North Calvert Street
Baltimore, MD 21278
ATT. Robin L. Milligan
SunSource Inside Sales Manager
Dear Ms. Milligan,
This letter memorializes our telephone conversation of
September 7, 1999, regarding your August
31, 1999 letter, i.e.,
"It has come to my attention that your organization
has utilized the Baltimore Sun articles ('On this statue-fleck
patch, homeless and protestors may rest their heads but not sleep,'
by Robert Ruby and 'The Inauguration: A Grand Old Party,' by
Susan Baer) and republished them on your web site (www.prop1.org).
"All permission for such republication is granted through
the SunSource office. We have no record of your request for re-use
or of a permission letter being issued for this material...."
As you know, it is my belief that our use of those two
articles constitutes "fair use," pursuant to the provisions
of 17 USC 107, i.e.,
Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A,
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction
in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by
that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship,
or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining
whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair
use the factors to be considered shall include -
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such
use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational
purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation
to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value
of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished
shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is
made upon consideration of all the above factors.
As you apparently agreed during our telephone conversation,
(1) our web site is not of a commercial nature -- we do not make
a penny off the site, in fact it costs us money to put it online,
(2) the copyrighted work(s) depend entirely upon our vigil in
Lafayette Park, and there would not have even been any "copyrighted
work" if we hadn't provided the subject matter, (3) our web
site is intended as a vehicle of criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research concerning the history of
Lafayette Park, and the changing legal perimeters of freedom of
expression in the nation's preeminent public forum; as such, the
two articles to which you refer are merely footnotes to the substance
of our web site, and finally (4) our use of these two articles
has absolutely no effect "upon the potential market for or
value of the copyrighted work."
As I also explained to you, because we do not solicit funds,
nor do we profit from our web site, it is not possible for us
to pay you the $200 per annum fee that you demand for use of these
two footnotes.
In our conversation you were unable to supply any reason
that our use of the contested articles was not "fair use"
under 17 USC 107. I'm certain that you and your attorneys can
find something more productive to do with your talents than to
make an issue over whether our use of your footnotes is "fair
use." Therefore, if you folks are absolutely set on going
forth with this matter, I would request that your attorneys contact
us with respect to legal precedents which support your position.
If your attorneys can provide the legal grounds for contesting
"fair use," we will be in a better position to resolve
this matter while saving the time and expense of litigation.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
William Thomas