Fair dealing is a limitation and exception to the exclusive rights granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work.
Fair dealing is an enumerated set of possible defences against an action for infringement of an exclusive right of copyright.
158, 2006)[7] enabled parody and satire to qualify as fair dealing under federal copyright law in certain circumstances.
Two of the recommendations were specifically in response to the stricter copyright rules introduced as part of the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), while the most recent two, by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) and the Productivity Commission (PC) were with reference to strengthening Australia's "digital economy".
The fair dealing clauses[13] of the Canadian Copyright Act allow users to engage in certain activities relating to research, private study, education, parody, satire, criticism, review, or news reporting.
With respect to criticism, review, and news reporting, the user must mention the source of the material, along with the name of the author, performer, maker, or broadcaster for the dealing to be fair.
Though the Supreme Court outlined these six criteria, it noted that in some contexts, factors other than those listed may be relevant in determining whether a particular dealing is fair.
[15] The stated aims of the revised bill were also to "permit businesses, educators and libraries to make greater use of copyright material in digital form".
[15] Bill C-32 had not passed by the time the minority Conservative government faced a vote of no confidence and subsequently fell on March 25, 2011.
[16] Critics of the bill point to "excessively restrictive digital lock amendments"[17] that they claim will create a situation where people "are entitled to use copyrighted content lawfully but [are] prevented from doing so".
It dealt with some of the burning social and political problems of those days, especially espoused by the then Communist Party of India to come to Power in Kerala during the assembly elections in 1957.
The defendant on the other hand, claimed that the counter drama is a new literary innovation 'where a play is counter-posed by using the very same theme and characters.
Herein, the defendant claimed that since there was high probability of the defence of fair dealing being applicable in the case, irreparable injury that could have been caused, especially, looking at the current political scenario in Kerala, which would also show a lack of balance of convenience.
Plaintiffs argued that the lower court's decision should not be reversed unless the same is found to be completely illegal or perverse.
As this suit was filed for granting interim injunction, the following also needs to be taken into account:Subsequently, the Court relied on the decision given in Hubbard v Vosper,[23] wherein Lord Denning had clarified that fair dealing is a question of degree.
Moreover, if the injunction is granted, it would cause irreparable injury to the Defendants as they had made all arrangements to stage the counter drama and a huge amount of money was spent in that.
Hence, the decision of the Additional District Judge was reversed and it was held that even if the copying was of substantial portions, the same could be excused as it constituted fair dealing, as it was also in public interest.
In New Zealand, fair dealing includes some copying for private study, research, criticism, review, and news reporting.
Since 2014 the UK has protected the fair dealing exceptions from override by contracts or contractual terms and conditions.
[26] Consequently, now commonplace activities such as format shifting (saving one's music contained in their CDs on their MP3 players or on their smartphones) are illegal, but in practice the Government does not enforce this.