John Harper Case Analysis

Harper argued that the last statutory factor is undoubtedly the single most important component of fair use. The court reasoned that when fair use is properly applied, it is limited to copying by secondary users whose work does not substantially impair marketability of the original work. To refute fair use the court indicated that the original user would need to show that if the challenged use became widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. The examination must take account the harm to the original aw well as the harm to the market for derivative works.
With regard to the profits achieved from the copyright infringement, the court affirmed that an infringer whom integrated their own original work …show more content…
Like in Campbell, the courts stressed the close relationship between the first and fourth factors. They found that “the more the copying is done to achieve a purpose that differs from the purpose of the original, the less likely it is that the copy will serve as a satisfactory substitute for the original.”
However, the courts found that Campbell 's opinion as to the likelihood of a secondary work being an effective substitute goes only so far. The court argued that even if the purpose of the copying is for a valuably transformative purpose, such copying could still harm the significance of the copyrighted original if done in a manner that resulted in significant portions of the original as to make available a competing substitute.
In Kientiz, the court explained that it is best to stay with the statutory factors, with the market affect factor the more important. The court questioned whether the contested use is a complement to the copyrighted work, which is permissible, rather than a substitute for it, which is