Copyright Fair Use: Is using the phrase "Courtesy of" legally acceptable when no permission has been given?

Question

When quoting content under copyright fair use, is it legally acceptable (in English) to use the words "Courtesy of ACME Inc.", even if no permission has been granted?

To me, the words "courtesy of" imply that permission has been granted. But I'm thinking that implication is likely irrelevant in the eyes of law, and that using the words "courtesy of" is likely fine, regardless of whether permission is granted.

Is my hunch legally founded or incorrect?

I'm interested in answers for any and all jurisdictions.

Inspired by this Law Stack Exchange QA: Does this Super User answer on Stack Exchange constitute fair use or copyright infringement?

Answer 1

Fair use does not necessarily require attribution and does not dictate any particular form of attribution. Of course, the method of attribution and/or linking to an original source can inform the fair use analysis, but that is a case-by-case assessment, alongside all the other factors.

Where attribution intersects clearly with copyright law is when a person is making a licenced use of a work, and the licence calls for a particular form of attribution.

Fair use is about what would otherwise be an infringement — unlicensed use.

Answer 2

In the United States, the First Amendment makes it "legally acceptance" to say "courtesy of" in the absence of permission to copy a piece of copyrighted material -- at least in the sense that it is not an offense to say that phrase.

However, that does not mean that using that phrase (or any other disclaimer of authorship) makes it "legally acceptable" to copy a copyrighted work in the absence of permission to do so. Infringement is still infringement, even if you acknowledge that you did not create the work, even if you give credit to the author, and even if you say that you do not intend to infringe.

Answer 3

france

Not copyright infringement

"Fair use" does not exist in France, but something similar is at §3 of article L122-5 of the intellectual property code:

Lorsque l'oeuvre a été divulguée, l'auteur ne peut interdire :

(...)

3° Sous réserve que soient indiqués clairement le nom de l'auteur et la source :

a) Les analyses et courtes citations justifiées par le caractère critique, polémique, pédagogique, scientifique ou d'information de l'oeuvre à laquelle elles sont incorporées (...)

Once a work has been published, its author cannot forbid

(...)

3° Under the condition that the name of the author and the source be clearly indicated:

a) Analyses and short citations justified by an interest of criticism, debate, pedagogy, science or information, of the work within which it is incorporated (...)

Assuming for the sake of argument that the test for paragraph 3(a) is satisfied, there is no copyright violation if the citation requirements of 3° are satisfied.

Probably not defamation

A "courtesy of" mention can be understood as an assertion that the copyright holder gave permission to reproduce the work. That is a factual statement (and a false one, per our hypothesis).

However it is not enough that the statement be false to be defamatory; it has to "impunge on the honor or consideration of the person [or corporation] to which the action is attributed" (see article 29 of the law about press freedom).

In general that would not be true - giving permission to use stuff is widely seen as a nice thing to do. Even if it was defamatory, it usually would be very mild (and hence not worth pursuing legal action against). I can conceive some very specific cases where it would end up in court; for instance, if a prominent neo-Nazi publisher reproduces a quotation "courtesy of rabbi Hertzl" as part of some antisemitic screed, with the implication that rabbi Hertzl supports that publication.

Finally, a note about the practicalities of redress. Putting a monetary amount on non-tangible damage (reputational, emotional, etc.) is always difficult, but the French doctrine is (to a first approximation) "receipts or get out". A very common monetary award is the symbolic amount of €1; a very large portion of successful defamation cases (possibly more than half) end with that award. The more substantial redress in cases of defamation is judicial publication (where a newspaper who published a defamatory article is forced to publish the court’s judgment in the next issue with the same prominence as the original article), which would not be available in the US (where the first amendment prohibits compelled speech).

Answer 4

No, rather clearly not.

Shortly, 'Courtesy of…' is meaningful only when it's 'Courtesy of Some One…'

To the extent that is meaningful, it implies both that Some One has given permission for this use, and more than likely Some One has given that permission without payment of any kind; free, gratis and for nothing.