Kingsfield
Two products How it works PII Tokenizer Writing
Connect the Judge
Home › Research › Intellectual Property › Copyright fair use factors
Kingsfield · Research · Intellectual Property

What statutory factors decide whether use of a copyrighted work is fair use?

Published 2026-06-23 · U.S. federal law

Section 107 makes fair use of a copyrighted work not an infringement, and lists four factors a court weighs: purpose and character of the use, nature of the work, amount used, and market effect.

The answer

Fair use is not infringement

17 U.S.C. § 107 provides that the fair use of a copyrighted work, including for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. The section then lists the factors a court must consider.

The four factors

The statute directs courts to weigh the purpose and character of the use, including whether it is commercial; the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used; and the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the work.

The judged input

What the AI drafted

Submitted to the judge

This is an excerpt from a draft copyright infringement advisory memo — the kind of work product a lawyer generates with a legal-AI drafting tool, then has to stand behind. Kingsfield does not write it; it rules on the citations the model put in it. This draft cites two authorities; one of them is wrong.

AI draft excerpt — copyright infringement advisory memo
We advise that the proposed use may qualify as fair use, which is a complete defense rather than a mere mitigation. Under 17 U.S.C. § 107, the fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement, and a court weighs the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the work, the amount and substantiality used, and the effect on the potential market. Because the planned use is transformative and takes only what is needed, the first and third factors favor the Company. The fair use defense itself is set out in 17 U.S.C. § 106.

The judge ruled on every citation as the draft used it — it accepted 17 U.S.C. § 107 and rejected 17 U.S.C. § 106. Here is why.

The verdict

How Kingsfield ruled

Ruled 2026-06-23

Each citation in the draft above was submitted to the Kingsfield judge and ruled against the primary-law corpus — Accept, Reject, or Inconclusive, per citation. These are live verdicts, not editorial. Each card shows the claim the draft made and the verbatim authority the verdict was rendered against.

Accept17 U.S.C. § 107

The draft claimed: The fair use of a copyrighted work is not an infringement, and in determining fair use a court considers the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the work.

“§ 107 Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not…”

Cite found; proposition supported by the cited text.

Reject17 U.S.C. § 106

The draft claimed: Section 106 sets out the fair use defense and the four factors a court weighs in deciding whether an otherwise infringing use is excused as fair use.

Cite found, but the cited text does not support the claim. 17 U.S.C. 106 grants the copyright owner the exclusive rights (reproduction, derivative works, distribution, public performance and display); the fair use defense and its four factors are at 17 U.S.C. 107. Regenerate with the correct authority.

Run your own work through the judge

Kingsfield rules on every citation, quote, and proposition your AI produces, against the primary law we cover. Accept, Reject, or Inconclusive, per citation, with a signed Audit Capsule.

Connect the Judge See the architecture

This page is legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The draft shown is an illustration of a typical AI answer; verdicts reflect the cited authority in the Kingsfield corpus as of the ruling date shown above.

Kingsfield

The judge for legal AI.
A WalkerNash Development LLC product.

© 2026 WalkerNash Development LLC. All rights reserved.
Built in the United States. No third-party trackers.
Product
  • Two products
  • How it works
  • Audit Capsule
  • Practice areas
  • Cloud Judge · MCP
  • PII Tokenizer
For Firms
  • Pricing
  • Privilege
  • DPA
  • Trust posture
  • Research
  • Verified attorneys
  • Status
Company
  • About WalkerNash
  • Crucible (compliance)
  • Writing
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Press
v0.9.4 · 2026.05.26kingsfield.ai