Page:International Code Council v. UpCodes (2020).pdf/75

 17 U.S.C. § 107. The purposes listed in the statute are “illustrative and not limitative,” and the four factors specified are similarly not exclusive of other considerations. Castle Rock Ent., Inc. v. Carol Pub. Grp., Inc., 150 F.3d 132, 141 (2d Cir. 1998). “The ultimate test of fair use, therefore, is whether the copyright law’s goal of ‘promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts,’ U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 8, ‘would be better served by allowing the use than by preventing it.’” Id. (citing Arica Inst., Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067, 1077 (2d Cir. 1992)). “The task is not to be simplified with bright-line rules, for the statute, like the doctrine it recognizes, calls for case-by-case analysis.” Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 577 (1994).

The four enumerated fair use factors should not be considered in isolation but “are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright.” Id. at 578. However, the first and fourth enumerated factors are generally more significant than the second and third. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202, 213–14 (2d Cir. 2015). “The fact-driven nature of the fair use determination suggests that a district court should be cautious in granting Rule 56 motions in this