這則WSJ的新聞標題，似乎將Google公司變成抗爭「消費者合法使用有版權（著作權/製作權）之出版品」運動之龍頭：雖然Google的衝突最多，不過這是整體資訊產業與媒體或內容產業之爭.....

Google, Others Contest Copyright Warnings

By SARAH MCBRIDE and ADAM THOMPSON

Diehard baseball fans can recite by heart the familiar copyright warnings that run with every game on television.

Now, a computer-industry trade group is crying foul, saying those warnings and others like it on movies and books are trampling over consumers' rights to fair use of copyrighted content.

Today, the Computer and Communications Industry Association -- a group representing companies including Google Inc., Microsoft Inc. and other technology heavyweights -- plans to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission, alleging that several content companies, ranging from sports leagues to movie studios to book publishers, are overstepping bounds with their warnings. The group wants the FTC to investigate and order copyright holders to stop wording warnings in what it sees as a misrepresentative way.

"We look forward to receiving their complaint and reviewing it," said an FTC spokeswoman.

Many warnings "materially misrepresent U.S. copyright law, particularly the fundamental built-in First Amendment accommodations which serve to safeguard the public interest," the complaint alleges. CCIA President Ed Black said the warnings create a "chilling effect," dissuading consumers from using portions of the content in ways that are lawful.

The conflict illustrates the shifting concept of fair use in the digital age. "Fair use" of intellectual property revolves around the question of how much, if any, of movies, books, music and other creations can be used without permission of the owners. As Internet platforms have made it easier to redistribute chunks of content without asking for approval, copyright owners have become more protective about enforcing their rights.

One battle has involved the use of sports rights on the Web. During every baseball game, a voice intones that "this copyrighted telecast is presented by authority of the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball. It may not be reproduced or retransmitted in any form, and the accounts and descriptions of this game may not be disseminated without express written consent." A Major League Baseball spokesman said it would be inappropriate to comment without seeing the filing. Similar claims run ahead of National Football League games. An NFL spokesman declined to comment.

Studios typically display similar warnings ahead of movies and on DVDs, and publishers include them in their books.

The CCIA said copyright holders should let audiences know they may have a right to reproduce some of the work. They even provide examples of how it can be done, as in this warning in the John Wiley & Son's 2007 book "Hotel California." The warning says, "No part of this publication may be reproduced...except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the United States Copyright Act," referring to the sections that deal with fair use and reproduction by libraries and archives.

Justin Hughes, a professor of law at Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University in New York, said the notion of fair use is expanding in the digital age, with consumers getting used to copying CDs, for example, as a gift for somebody. A difficulty with the concept of fair use is that while the Copyright Act establishes what fair use is, the application of the rules is still somewhat subjective, said Mr. Hughes. They call for courts to consider several factors ranging from the nature of the use -- such as whether it is public or private -- to whether the reproduced work had any effect on the market for the original.

Such questions are cropping up more in the context of the Internet. For example, Google is arguing its project to digitize the world's books and make snippets of them available on demand falls under fair use; the Authors Guild and a number of major publishers disagree and are suing the search engine. By contrast, most scholars agree that posting a straight clip of a television show, as some YouTube users do, doesn't fall under fair use. YouTube, which Google bought last year for more than $1.7 billion, quickly removes them once copyright holders complain.

However, if the YouTube poster transforms the original clip in some way, his or her post may be protected under fair use. In its 1994 ruling in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, the Supreme Court ruled that parodies usually are protected under fair use, even if they are created for profit.

A spokesman for Reed Elsevier PLC's Harcourt Inc., one of the publishers named in the complaint, said he hadn't seen it and declined to comment.

--Kevin Delaney contributed to this article.

Write to Sarah McBride at sarah.mcbride@wsj.com and Adam Thompson at adam.thompson@wsj.com