| I have a hard time seeing how it doesn't fail all the fair use tests. Calling it a "textbook" case is huge overstatement, IMO. 1. The purpose and character of your use. Verbatim republication, including original layout, etc. in a commercial publication - NYT.com is a paywall and ad-supported site. 2 The nature of the copyrighted work. Originally published at some not-immaterial effort and expense in a reputable independent journal. Well known in the industry. 3. The amount and substantiality of the portion taken. All of it, and the kitchen sink. 4. The effect of the use upon the potential market. Destroys any chance the owner had of charging for this material. You make assumptions about what the NY Times knew and didn't know that you yourself can't possibly know. My opinion is that it would have been easy for the Times (a crack news organization) to find the owner. Also, you say that the Phoenix didn't know the story existed, despite the fact that the author clearly indicated that the story is legendary. Long story short: spurious analysis of a complex issue. |