La squadra sportiva della scuola, al fine di motivare i propri alunni-atleti, riproduceva in post Twitter il passaggio seguente da un’opera di psicologia motivazionale (cioè 1 pag. su 72 circa, anche se forse la più importante):
<<Winning isn’t normal. That doesn’t mean there’s anything
wrong with winning. It just isn’t the norm. It is highly unusual.
Every competition only has one winner. No matter how many
people are entered, only one person or one team wins each
Winning is unusual. And as such, it requires unusual action.
In order to win, you must do extraordinary things. You can’t
just be one of the crowd. The crowd doesn’t win. You have to
be willing to stand out and act differently.
Your actions need to reflect unusual values and priorities. You
have to value success more than others do. You have to want
it more. Now take note! Wanting it more is a decision you
make and act upon—not some inherent quality or burning inner drive or inspiration! And you have to make that value a
You can’t train like everyone else. You have to train more and
You can’t talk like everyone else. You can’t think like everyone
else. You can’t be too willing to join the crowd, to do what is
expected, to act in a socially accepted manner, to do what’s
“in.” You need to be willing to stand out in the crowd and
consistently take exceptional action. If you want to win, you
need to accept the risks and perhaps the loneliness . . .
BECAUSE WINNING ISN’T NORMAL!>>
la Corte ricorda i quattri fattori ex lege previsti dal 17 USC § 107: (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
Rititene che il primo e l’ultimo siano a favore della scuola, il terzo neutro e il secondo -il meno importante, però- a favore dell’autore del libro.
Quindi rigetta la sua domanda per ricorrenza del fair use.
(notizia e link alla sentenza dal blog del prof. Eric Goldman)