US-CA9 · jury_instructions
9th Cir. Model Jury Instr. (Civil) 17.23
Copyright—Affirmative Defense—Fair Use (17 U.S.C. § 107)
One who is not the owner of the copyright may nonetheless use the copyrighted work certain circumstances without the consent of the copyright owner. Such use of a copyrighted work is called a fair use. The owner of a copyright cannot prevent others from making a fair use of the owner’s copyrighted work.
The defendant [name] contends that [he] [she] [other pronoun] made fair use of the copyrighted work for the purpose of [criticism] [comment] [news reporting] [teaching] [scholarship] [research] [other purpose alleged]. The defendant [name] has the burden of proving the defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
In determining whether the use made of the work was fair, you should consider the following factors:
the purpose and character of the use, including whether the use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
the nature of the copyrighted work;
the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole;
the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work; and
[(5) [insert any other factor that bears on the issue of fair use].]
If you find that the defendant [name] has proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant made a fair use of the plaintiff [name]’s work, your verdict should be for the defendant [name].
Provenance
- Source
- ce9.uscourts.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- 2026-08-20
- Content hash
1b23f76020df4ac0c4603ede3d0773e85e47fb0f48d132da1b55b15ff9f9d0b2
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.