In no particular order (because why not?):
A book reviewer doesn't need the permission of the author or publisher to quote their book because of fair use in the U.S. (fair dealing in other jurisdictions), regardless of whether or not the reviewer was provided a copy of the book. No permission is implied because no permission is necessary.
Amazon probably doesn't just go ahead and offer Look Inside on all books because it is in their business interest to keep authors and publishers happy. However, getting permission doesn't necessarily mean you are obligated at law to get permission, it's sometimes just useful for business.
A handshake deal can still be a contract, and copyright is different from the law of contract; it's a "bargain" in the sense that the public is asked to give up something to promote creative works. My original point was that people confuse copyrightable works with regular property that they control, and that is simply not correct. Without copyright, you would lose control of any work you disseminate; with copyright, you are granted a limited monopoly to control reproduction. The 9th Circuit Appeals Court in the U.S. describes it this way:
Quote:
The Copyright Act exists "'to stimulate artistic creativity
for the general public good.'" Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm't, Inc., -F.3d-, 2013 WL 264645, at *2 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2013)(quoting Twentieth Century Music Corp v. Aiken, 422 U.S.
151, 156 (1975)). It does so by granting authors a "special reward" in the form of a limited monopoly over their works. However, an overzealous monopolist can use his copyright to stamp out the very creativity that the Act seeks to ignite. To avoid that perverse result, Congress codified the doctrine of fair use.
|