On Sep 17, 2008, at 8:52 PM, WJhonson(a)aol.com wrote:
Yes and no. "quoting every line of
dialogue" of course *copies*
the script.
The script itself is a copyrightable item, independently of the film
and is
so copyright just by virtue of its existence in tangible media. I'm
sure
everyone agrees with that.
It's your opinion that this multi-sub-page analysis was a copyright
infringement, but there is a wide exception to "copying in its
entirely" at least
under US Copyright Law, if the purpose and actual result is a
critique of that
work. Personally I would not suggest people try to exercise that
particular
part of US Copyright Law, as it's almost always entirely
unnecessary to copy
the *entire* script merely to critique it. However, for example,
with images,
you almost always need to present the entire image in order to
satisfactorily acquaint your audience with it, in order to present
your criticism.
There is a very famous debate between Jacques Derrida and John Searle,
for instance, in which something like this happened. As one of
Derrida's major points in the essay has to do with the nature of
quotation and its relationship to the original meaning, the essay
quotes Searle's essay extensively. Sufficiently extensively that
virtually the entire thing is quoted somewhere or other in Derrida's
(very, very long) essay. Including the copyright statement, which
Derrida quotes three times.
Which is to say that the "transformative" aspect of fair use is a
very, very important one.
-Phil