How Do I Argue That Something Isn't a Fair Use?

Dear Rich: We are attempting to have something removed from Google's search results as it is infringing on a client's copyright. I understand that in many cases this may be "fair use" and that is Google's current argument as well but they are requesting additional information on why we assume it doesn't fall under the "fair use" umbrella. Are there letters to Google that state or show examples of why things aren't "fair use" that I can read to see if it fits our situation? And/or do you have any suggestions on additional reading so we can make a strong argument why it is indeed infringing? There is also defamatory information being posted and for that reason we do not want to go directly after the site owners as they may retaliate.
We couldn't find any sample letters to Google so we suggest you write your own "legally reasoned" letter. Legal reasoning is simple: After stating the issue (Is this fair use?) and explaining the facts and the law (hint: fair use consists of four factors), you make your argument. The key to making a winning argument is finding fair use rulings that are similar to your situation
The Copyright Office to the rescue. Fortunately the Copyright Office has made life simpler for people researching fair use. The Fair Use Index summarizes hundreds of fair use cases.
First, the site allows you to search cases by jurisdiction. In your case (dealing with Google), all jurisdictions are relevant though, of course, Supreme Court cases swing the most weight. Second, select the category or categories that are similar. For example, if your situation involves a filmed news clip that was parodied, you would check Film, News Reporting and Parody and the search page would look like this:

Click on the cases that appear and find examples that support your position. You'll notice that each case summary contains a fair use analysis. Feel free to mimic these analysis in your letter (or attach them to your letter). Your goal is to succinctly explain that courts, facing situations like yours, have ruled against fair use. If your research shows the opposite result -- courts, in situations like yours, ruled for fair use -- then you may have to abandon your argument.

Why is There a Higher Copyright Fee for Two Writers?

Dear Rich: My wife and I write songs. For the last ten years we've been registering at the Copyright Office. But now things are different because they charge us a higher fee just because there are two writers. How can they get away with that? This year, the Copyright Office introduced a triple-tiered fee system. A single electronic application (details here) is $35, a standard electronic application (any electronic filing that doesn't qualify as a single application) is $55, and a paper application (remember them?) is $85! As for your question, "How can they get away with that?" -- check out this circular! Keep in mind, copyright registration is not mandatory (unless you're filing a lawsuit). You can read about the benefits here.

Searching the Copyright Renewal Database

Dear Rich: A friend of mine's husband had a book published in 1962 (listed as copyright 1962). He later reprinted a new edition of it in 1975 himself. When he died the rights were assigned to his wife. In looking at reprinting it again, I find that the Hathi Trust at U. of Michigan is making it available on their website as being in the public domain. I assume this is because they did not see a renewal for a second 23 years on the govt. copyright renewal website and assumed it fell into public domain. The thing is, his wife feels sure he did renew the book for a second 23 years, which would bring it to 1977 and thus be extended. However she is not able to find any paperwork on it. So I suppose my question is how complete is the Copyright extension database as accessed on the web? I know its possible they are missing one or two records, but is it known if there are gaps in their records? And is there a better way to make sure it was/was not renewed other than the web search? You're correct that the work would have to have been renewed for protection to continue but as one reader pointed out, you're looking at the wrong year for renewal information. A work that's published with notice in 1962 would have to be renewed in 1990, and if it was renewed, would then receive another 47 years of protection.
Renewal information. You're correct that not all renewal information migrated to the online database. As the folks at the Stanford Library explain, some of the renewal information was slow to move from the Copyright Office print card catalog into the searchable database. (You can read more about the card catalog here.) Stanford sought to correct that with its alternative renewal search system for books. Check that out as well as Rutger's database, and the University of Pennsylvania's online attempt to organize copyright renewal records by year. The most thorough (and expensive) way to verify renewal information is to hire someone to perform a copyright search. You can hire the Copyright Office for $165 an hour, or you can hire a private company to perform the card catalogue search.