text:
François Truffaut

François Roland Truffaut (, ;  ; 6 February 1932 – 21 October 1984) was a French filmmaker, actor, and critic. He is widely regarded as one of the founders of the French New Wave. With a career of more than 25 years, he is an icon of the French film industry.

Truffaut's film The 400 Blows (1959) is a defining film of the French New Wave movement, and has four sequels: Antoine et Colette (1962), Stolen Kisses (1968), Bed and Board (1970), and Love on the Run (1979). Truffaut's 1973 film Day for Night earned him critical acclaim and several awards, including the BAFTA Award for Best Film and the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film. His other notable films include Shoot the Piano Player (1960), Jules and Jim (1962), The Soft Skin (1964), The Wild Child (1970), Two English Girls (1971), The Last Metro (1980), and The Woman Next Door (1981). He played one of the main roles in Steven Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977).

Truffaut wrote the book Hitchcock/Truffaut (1966), based on his interviews with film director Alfred Hitchcock during the 1960s.

With his leading actress Claude Jade from three of his films he was engaged (1968) and with Fanny Ardant from his two last films François Truffaut lived together until his death. He was married from 1957 until 1964 with Madeleine Morgenstern.

Early life
Truffaut was born in Paris on 6 February 1932. His mother was Janine de Montferrand. His mother's future husband, Roland Truffaut, accepted him as an adopted son and gave him his surname. He was passed around to live with various nannies and his grandmother for a number of years. His grandmother instilled in him her love of books and music. He lived with her until her death, when Truffaut was eight years old. It was only after her death that he lived with his parents. Truffaut's biological father's identity is unknown, but a private detective agency in 1968 revealed that its inquiry into the matter led to a Roland Levy, a Jewish dentist from Bayonne. Truffaut's mother's family disputed the finding but Truffaut believed and embraced it.

Truffaut often stayed with friends and tried to be out of the house as much as possible. He knew Robert Lachenay from childhood, and they were lifelong best friends. Lachenay was the inspiration for the character René Bigey in The 400 Blows and worked as an assistant on some of Truffaut's films. Cinema offered Truffaut the greatest escape from an unsatisfying home life. He was eight years old when he saw his first movie, Abel Gance's Paradis Perdu (Paradise Lost, 1939), beginning his obsession. He frequently skipped school and snuck into theaters because he lacked the money for admission. After being expelled from several schools, at age 14 he decided to become self-taught. Two of his academic goals were to watch three movies a day and read three books a week.

Truffaut frequented Henri Langlois's Cinémathèque Française, where he was exposed to countless foreign films, becoming familiar with American cinema and directors such as John Ford, Howard Hawks and Nicholas Ray, as well as those of British director Alfred Hitchcock.

André Bazin
After starting his own film club in 1948, Truffaut met André Bazin, who had a great effect on his professional and personal life. Bazin was a critic and the head of another film society at the time. He became a personal friend of Truffaut's and helped him out of various financial and criminal situations during his formative years.

Truffaut joined the French Army in 1950, aged 18, but spent the next two years trying to escape. He was arrested for attempting to desert the army and incarcerated in military prison. Bazin used his political contacts to get Truffaut released and set him up with a job at his new film magazine, Cahiers du cinéma.

Cahiers du Cinéma
Over the next few years, Truffaut became a critic (and later editor) at Cahiers, where he became notorious for his brutal, unforgiving reviews. He was called "The Gravedigger of French Cinema" and was the only French critic not invited to the 1958 Cannes Film Festival. He supported Bazin in developing one of the most influential theories of cinema, the auteur theory.

In 1954, Truffaut wrote an article in Cahiers du cinéma, "Une Certaine Tendance du Cinéma Français" ("A Certain Trend of French Cinema"), in which he attacked the state of French films, lambasting certain screenwriters and producers, and listing eight directors he considered incapable of devising the kinds of "vile" and "grotesque" characters and storylines he called characteristic of the mainstream French film industry: Jean Renoir, Robert Bresson, Jean Cocteau, Jacques Becker, Abel Gance, Max Ophuls, Jacques Tati and Roger Leenhardt. The article caused a storm of controversy and landed Truffaut an offer to write for the nationally circulated, more widely read cultural weekly Arts-Lettres-Spectacles. Truffaut wrote more than 500 film articles for that publication over the next four years.

Truffaut later devised the auteur theory, according to which the director was the "author" of his work and great directors such as Renoir or Hitchcock have distinct styles and themes that permeate their films. Although his theory was not widely accepted then, it gained some support in the 1960s from American critic Andrew Sarris. In 1967, Truffaut published his book-length interview of Hitchcock, Hitchcock/Truffaut (New York: Simon and Schuster).

Short films
After having been a critic, Truffaut decided to make films. He began with the short film Une Visite (1955) and followed it with Les Mistons (1957).

The 400 Blows
After seeing Orson Welles's Touch of Evil at the Expo 58, Truffaut made his feature film directorial debut with The 400 Blows (1959), which received considerable critical and commercial acclaim. He won the Best Director award at the 1959 Cannes Film Festival. The film follows the character of Antoine Doinel through his perilous misadventures in school, an unhappy home life and later reform school. The film is highly autobiographical. Both Truffaut and Doinel were only children of loveless marriages; they both committed petty crimes of theft and truancy from the military. Truffaut cast Jean-Pierre Léaud as Doinel. Léaud was seen as an ordinary boy of 14 who auditioned for the role after seeing a flyer, but interviews after the film's release (one is included on the Criterion DVD of the film) reveal Léaud's natural sophistication and an instinctive understanding of acting for the camera. Léaud and Truffaut collaborated on several films over the years. Their most noteworthy collaboration was the continuation of Doinel's story in a series of films called "The Antoine Doinel Cycle".

The primary focus of The 400 Blows is Doinel's life. The film follows him through his troubled adolescence. He is caught in between an unstable parental relationship and an isolated youth. From birth Truffaut was thrown into a troublesome situation. As he was born out of wedlock, his birth had to remain a secret because of the stigma of illegitimacy. He was registered as "a child born to an unknown father" in hospital records and looked after by a nurse for an extended period of time. His mother eventually married and her husband gave François his surname, Truffaut.

Although he was legally accepted as a legitimate child, his parents did not accept him. The Truffauts had another child, who died shortly after birth. This experience saddened them greatly and as a result they despised François because of the regret he represented (Knopf 4). He was an outcast from his earliest years, dismissed as an unwanted child. François was sent to live with his grandparents. When his grandmother died, his parents took him in, much to his mother's dismay. His experiences with his mother were harsh. He recalled being treated badly by her but found comfort in his father's laughter and spirit. François had a very depressing childhood after moving in with his parents. They left him at home, by himself, when they took vacations. He even recalled being alone during Christmas. Being left alone forced François into independence, often doing various tasks around the house to improve it, such as painting or changing the electric outlets. Sadly, these kind gestures often resulted in catastrophic events, causing him to get scolded by his mother. His father mostly laughed them off.

The 400 Blows marked the beginning of the French New Wave movement, which gave directors such as Jean-Luc Godard, Claude Chabrol and Jacques Rivette a wider audience. The New Wave dealt with a self-conscious rejection of traditional cinema structure. This was a topic on which Truffaut had been writing for years.

Shoot the Piano Player
Following the success of The 400 Blows, Truffaut featured disjunctive editing and seemingly random voiceovers in his next film, Shoot the Piano Player (1960), starring Charles Aznavour. Truffaut has said that in the middle of filming, he realized that he hated gangsters. But since gangsters were a main part of the story, he toned up the comical aspect of the characters and made the movie more to his liking.

Even though Shoot the Piano Player was much appreciated by critics, it performed poorly at the box office. While the film focused on two of the French New Wave's favourite elements, American film noir and themselves, Truffaut never again experimented as heavily.

Jules and Jim and The Soft Skin
In 1962, Truffaut directed his third movie, Jules and Jim, a romantic drama starring Jeanne Moreau. The film was very popular and highly influential.

In 1963, Truffaut was approached to direct the American film Bonnie and Clyde, with a treatment written by Esquire journalists David Newman and Robert Benton intended to introduce the French New Wave to Hollywood. Although he was interested enough to help in script development, Truffaut ultimately declined, but not before interesting Jean-Luc Godard and American actor and would-be producer Warren Beatty, who proceeded with the film with director Arthur Penn.

The fourth movie Truffaut directed was The Soft Skin (1964). It was not acclaimed on its release.

Fahrenheit 451
Truffaut's first non-French film was a 1966 adaptation of Ray Bradbury's classic science fiction novel Fahrenheit 451, showcasing Truffaut's love of books. His only English-speaking film, made on location in England, was a great challenge for Truffaut, because he barely spoke English himself. Shot by cinematographer Nicolas Roeg, this was Truffaut's first film in colour. The larger-scale production was difficult for Truffaut, who had worked only with small crews and budgets. The shoot was also strained by a conflict with lead actor Oscar Werner, who was unhappy with his character and stormed off set, leaving Truffaut to shoot scenes using a body double shot from behind. The film was a commercial failure, and Truffaut never worked outside France again. The film's cult standing has steadily grown, although some critics remain dubious of it as an adaptation. A 2014 consideration of the film by Charles Silver praises it.

Thrillers and Stolen Kisses
Stolen Kisses (1968) was a continuation of the Antoine Doinel Cycle starring Claude Jade as Antoine's fiancée and later wife Christine Darbon. During its filming Truffaut fell in love with Jade and was briefly engaged to her. It was a big hit on the international art circuit. A short time later Jade made her Hollywood debut in Hitchcock's Topaz.

Truffaut worked on projects with varied subjects. The Bride Wore Black (1968), a brutal tale of revenge, is a stylish homage to the films of Alfred Hitchcock (once again starring Moreau). Mississippi Mermaid (1969), with Catherine Deneuve and Jean-Paul Belmondo, is an identity-bending romantic thriller. Both films are based on novels by Cornell Woolrich.

The Wild Child (1970) included Truffaut's acting debut in the lead role of 18th-century physician Jean Marc Gaspard Itard.

Doinel marries Christine
Bed and Board (1970) was another Antoine Doinel film, also with Jade, now Léaud's on-screen-wife.

Two English Girls (1971) is the female reflection of the same love story as "Jules et Jim". It is based on a story by Henri-Pierre Roché, who wrote Jules and Jim, about a man who falls equally in love with two sisters, and their love affair over a period of years.

Such a Gorgeous Kid Like Me (1972) was a screwball comedy that was not well received, besides being very good.

Day for Night
Day for Night won Truffaut a Best Foreign Film Oscar. The film is probably his most reflective work. It is the story of a film crew trying to finish a film while dealing with the personal and professional problems that accompany making a movie. Truffaut plays the director of the fictional film being made. This film features scenes from his previous films. It is considered his best film since his earliest work. Time magazine placed it on its list of 100 Best Films of the Century (along with The 400 Blows).

In 1975, Truffaut gained more notoriety with The Story of Adèle H.; Isabelle Adjani in the title role earned a nomination for an Academy Award for Best Actress. His 1976 film Small Change was nominated for the Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film.

The late 1970s and the last Doinel
The Man Who Loved Women (1977), a romantic drama, was a minor hit.

Truffaut also appeared in Steven Spielberg's 1977 Close Encounters of the Third Kind as scientist Claude Lacombe.

The Green Room (1978) starred Truffaut in the lead. It was a box-office flop, so he made Love on the Run (1979) starring Léaud and Jade as the final movie of the Doinel Cycle.

The Last Metro
One of Truffaut's final films gave him an international revival. The Last Metro (1980) garnered 12 César Award nominations and 10 wins, including Best Director.

Final films and legacy
Truffaut's last film was shot in black and white, giving his career a sense of having bookends. Confidentially Yours is Truffaut's tribute to his favourite director, Hitchcock. It deals with numerous Hitchcockian themes, such as private guilt versus public innocence, a woman investigating a murder, and anonymous locations.

A keen reader, Truffaut adapted many literary works, including two novels by Henri-Pierre Roché, Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, Henry James's "The Altar of the Dead", filmed as The Green Room, and several American detective novels.

Truffaut's other films were from original screenplays, often co-written by the screenwriters Suzanne Schiffman or Jean Gruault. They featured diverse subjects, the sombre The Story of Adèle H. inspired by the life of the daughter of Victor Hugo, with Isabelle Adjani; Day for Night, shot at the Victorine Studios, depicting the ups and downs of filmmaking; and The Last Metro, set during the German occupation of France during World War II, a film rewarded by ten César Awards.

Known as a lifelong cinephile, Truffaut once (according to the 1993 documentary film François Truffaut: Stolen Portraits) threw a hitchhiker out of his car after learning that he did not like films.

Many filmmakers admire Truffaut, and tributes to his work have appeared in films such as Almost Famous, Face and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, as well as novelist Haruki Murakami's Kafka on the Shore. In conversation with Michael Ondaatje, film editor Walter Murch mentions the influence Truffaut had on him as a young man, saying he was "electrified" by the freeze-frame at the end of The 400 Blows, and that Godard's Breathless and Truffaut's Shoot the Piano Player reinforced the idea that he could make films.

Roger Ebert included The 400 Blows in his canon of Great Movies, and concludes: "one of his most curious, haunting films is The Green Room (1978), based on the Henry James story 'The Altar of the Dead,' about a man and a woman who share a passion for remembering their dead loved ones. Jonathan Rosenbaum, who thinks The Green Room may be Truffaut's best film, told me he thinks of it as the director's homage to the auteur theory. That theory, created by Bazin and his disciples (Truffaut, Godard, Resnais, Chabrol, Rohmer, Malle), declared that the director was the true author of a film—not the studio, the screenwriter, the star, the genre. If the figures in the green room stand for the great directors of the past, perhaps there is a shrine there now to Truffaut. One likes to think of the ghost of Antoine Doinel lighting a candle before it."

Commentary of other filmmakers
Truffaut expressed his admiration for filmmakers such as Luis Buñuel, Ingmar Bergman, Robert Bresson, Roberto Rossellini, and Alfred Hitchcock. He wrote Hitchcock/Truffaut, a book about Hitchcock, based on a lengthy series of interviews.

Of Jean Renoir, he said: "I think Renoir is the only filmmaker who's practically infallible, who has never made a mistake on film. And I think if he never made mistakes, it's because he always found solutions based on simplicity—human solutions. He's one film director who never pretended. He never tried to have a style, and if you know his work—which is very comprehensive, since he dealt with all sorts of subjects—when you get stuck, especially as a young filmmaker, you can think of how Renoir would have handled the situation, and you generally find a solution".

Truffaut called German filmmaker Werner Herzog "the most important film director alive."

Truffaut and Jean-Luc Godard, his colleague from Les Cahiers du Cinéma, worked together closely during their start as film directors although they had different working methods. Tensions came to the surface after May 68: Godard wanted a more political, specifically Marxist cinema, Truffaut was critical of creating films for primarily political purposes. In 1973, Godard wrote Truffaut a lengthy and raucous private letter peppered with accusations and insinuations, several times stating that as a filmmaker "you're a liar" and that his latest film (Day for Night) had been unsatisfying, lying and evasive: "You're a liar, because the scene between you and Jacqueline Bisset last week at Francis [a Paris restaurant] isn't included in your movie, and one also can't help wondering why the director is the only guy who isn't sleeping around in Day for Night" (Truffaut directed the film, wrote it and played the director on the film set in the film). Godard also implied that Truffaut had gone commercial and easy.

Truffaut replied with an angry 20-page letter in which he accused Godard of being a radical-chic hypocrite, a man who believed everyone to be "equal" in theory only. "The Ursula Andress of militancy—like Brando—a piece of shit on a pedestal." Godard later tried to reconcile with Truffaut, but they never spoke to or saw each other again. After Truffaut's death, Godard wrote the introduction to a generous selection of his correspondence, and included his own 1973 letter. He also offered a long tribute in his film Histoire(s) du cinéma.

Personal life
Truffaut was married to Madeleine Morgenstern from 1957 to 1965, and they had two daughters, Laura (born 1959) and Eva (born 1961). Madeleine was the daughter of Ignace Morgenstern, managing director of one of France's largest film distribution companies, Cocinor, and was largely responsible for securing funding for Truffaut's first films.

In 1968, Truffaut was engaged to actress Claude Jade (Stolen Kisses, Bed and Board, Love on the Run); he and Fanny Ardant (The Woman Next Door, Confidentially Yours) lived together from 1981 to 1984 and had a daughter, Joséphine Truffaut (born 28 September 1983).

Truffaut was an atheist, but had great respect for the Catholic Church and requested a Requiem Mass for his funeral.

Death
In July 1983, following his first stroke and being diagnosed with a brain tumour, Truffaut rented France Gall's and Michel Berger's house outside Honfleur, Normandy. He was expected to attend his friend Miloš Forman's Amadeus premiere when he died on 21 October 1984, aged 52, at the American Hospital of Paris in Neuilly-sur-Seine in France.

At the time of his death, he was said to have numerous further films in preparation. He is buried in Montmartre Cemetery.

Feature film
TV writer (Posthumous releases)

Awards and nominations
Academy Awards

BAFTA Awards

Berlin International Film Festival

Cannes Film Festival

César Awards

Mar del Plata International Film Festival

Venice International Film Festival

title: François Truffaut


text:
Fair use

Fair use is a doctrine in United States law that permits limited use of copyrighted material without having to first acquire permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is one of the limitations to copyright intended to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public interest in the wider distribution and use of creative works by allowing as a defense to copyright infringement claims certain limited uses that might otherwise be considered infringement. The U.S. "fair use doctrine" is generally broader than the "fair dealing" rights known in most countries that inherited English Common Law. The fair use right is a general exception that applies to all different kinds of uses with all types of works. In the U.S., fair use right/exception is based on a flexible proportionality test that examines the purpose of the use, the amount used, and the impact on the market of the original work.

The doctrine of "fair use" originated in common law during the 18th and 19th centuries as a way of preventing copyright law from being too rigidly applied and "stifling the very creativity which [copyright] law is designed to foster." Though originally a common law doctrine, it was enshrined in statutory law when the U.S. Congress passed the Copyright Act of 1976. The U.S. Supreme Court has issued several major decisions clarifying and reaffirming the fair use doctrine since the 1980s, the most recent being in the 2021 decision Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.

History
The 1710 Statute of Anne, an act of the Parliament of Great Britain, created copyright law to replace a system of private ordering enforced by the Stationers' Company. The Statute of Anne did not provide for legal unauthorized use of material protected by copyright. In Gyles v Wilcox, the Court of Chancery established the doctrine of "fair abridgement", which permitted unauthorized abridgement of copyrighted works under certain circumstances. Over time, this doctrine evolved into the modern concepts of fair use and fair dealing. Fair use was a common-law (i.e. created by judges as a legal precedent) doctrine in the U.S. until it was incorporated into the Copyright Act of 1976,.

The term "fair use" originated in the United States. Although related, the limitations and exceptions to copyright for teaching and library archiving in the U.S. are located in a different section of the statute. A similar-sounding principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions but in fact it is more similar in principle to the enumerated exceptions found under civil law systems. Civil law jurisdictions have other limitations and exceptions to copyright.

In response to perceived over-expansion of copyrights, several electronic civil liberties and free expression organizations began in the 1990s to add fair use cases to their dockets and concerns. These include the Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Coalition Against Censorship, the American Library Association, numerous clinical programs at law schools, and others. The "Chilling Effects" archive was established in 2002 as a coalition of several law school clinics and the EFF to document the use of cease and desist letters. In 2006 Stanford University began an initiative called "The Fair Use Project" (FUP) to help artists, particularly filmmakers, fight lawsuits brought against them by large corporations.

U.S. fair use factors
Examples of fair use in United States copyright law include commentary, search engines, criticism, parody, news reporting, research, and scholarship. Fair use provides for the legal, unlicensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author's work under a four-factor test.

The U.S. Supreme Court has traditionally characterized fair use as an affirmative defense, but in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. (2015) (the "dancing baby" case), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that fair use was not merely a defense to an infringement claim, but was an expressly authorized right, and an exception to the exclusive rights granted to the author of a creative work by copyright law: "Fair use is therefore distinct from affirmative defenses where a use infringes a copyright, but there is no liability due to a valid excuse, e.g., misuse of a copyright."

"; Notwithstanding the provisions of sections and, 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 an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

 * the purpose and character of the use, including whether such 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; and
 * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

The four factors of analysis for fair use set forth above derive from the opinion of Joseph Story in Folsom v. Marsh, in which the defendant had copied 353 pages from the plaintiff's 12-volume biography of George Washington in order to produce a separate two-volume work of his own. The court rejected the defendant's fair use defense with the following explanation:

"[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy ...

In short, we must often ... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work."

The statutory fair use factors quoted above come from the Copyright Act of 1976, which is codified at. They were intended by Congress to restate, but not replace, the prior judge-made law. As Judge Pierre N. Leval has written, the statute does not "define or explain [fair use's] contours or objectives." While it "leav[es] open the possibility that other factors may bear on the question, the statute identifies none." That is, courts are entitled to consider other factors in addition to the four statutory factors.

1. Purpose and character of the use
The first factor is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." To justify the use as fair, one must demonstrate how it either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new.

In the 1841 copyright case Folsom v. Marsh, Justice Joseph Story wrote: "'[A] reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticise, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy.'"

A key consideration in later fair use cases is the extent to which the use is transformative. In the 1994 decision Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc, the U.S. Supreme Court held that when the purpose of the use is transformative, this makes the first factor more likely to favor fair use. Before the Campbell decision, federal Judge Pierre Leval argued that transformativeness is central to the fair use analysis in his 1990 article, Toward a Fair Use Standard. Blanch v. Koons is another example of a fair use case that focused on transformativeness. In 2006, Jeff Koons used a photograph taken by commercial photographer Andrea Blanch in a collage painting. Koons appropriated a central portion of an advertisement she had been commissioned to shoot for a magazine. Koons prevailed in part because his use was found transformative under the first fair use factor.

The Campbell case also addressed the subfactor mentioned in the quotation above, "whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes." In an earlier case, Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., the Supreme Court had stated that "every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively ... unfair." In Campbell, the court clarified that this is not a "hard evidentiary presumption" and that even the tendency that commercial purpose will "weigh against a finding of fair use ... will vary with the context." The Campbell court held that hip-hop group 2 Live Crew's parody of the song "Oh, Pretty Woman" was fair use, even though the parody was sold for profit. Thus, having a commercial purpose does not preclude a use from being found fair, even though it makes it less likely.

Likewise, the noncommercial purpose of a use makes it more likely to be found a fair use, but it does not make it a fair use automatically. For instance, in L.A. Times v. Free Republic, the court found that the noncommercial use of Los Angeles Times content by the Free Republic website was not fair use, since it allowed the public to obtain material at no cost that they would otherwise pay for. Richard Story similarly ruled in Code Revision Commission and State of Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. that despite the fact that it is a non-profit and did not sell the work, the service profited from its unauthorized publication of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated because of "the attention, recognition, and contributions" it received in association with the work.

Another factor is whether the use fulfills any of the preamble purposes, also mentioned in the legislation above, as these have been interpreted as "illustrative" of transformative use.

In determining that Prince's appropriation art could constitute fair use and that many of his works were transformative fair uses of Cariou's photographs, the Second Circuit in Cariou v. Prince, 714 F.3d 694 (2d. Cir. 2013) shed light on how transformative use is determined. "What is critical is how the work in question appears to the reasonable observer, not simply what an artist might say about a particular piece or body of work." The district court's conclusion that Prince's work was not transformative is partly based on Prince's deposition testimony that he "do[es]n't really have a message," and that he was not "trying to create anything with a new meaning or a new message." However, the artist's intended message "is not dispositive." Instead, the focus of the transformative use inquiry is how the artworks will "reasonably be perceived".

The transformativeness inquiry is a deceptively simple test to determine whether a new work has a different purpose and character from an original work. However, courts have not been consistent in deciding whether something is transformative. For instance, in Seltzer v. Green Day, Inc., 725 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2013), the court found that Green Day's use of Seltzer's copyrighted Scream Icon was transformative. The court held that Green Day's modifications to the original Scream Icon conveyed new information and aesthetics from the original piece.

Conversely, the Second Circuit came to the opposite conclusion in a similar situation in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 11 F.4th 26 (2d. Cir. 2021). In that case, the Warhol Foundation sought a declaratory judgment that Warhol's use of one of Goldsmith's celebrity photographs was fair use. The court held that Warhol's use was not transformative because Warhol merely imposed his own style on Goldsmith's photograph and retained the photograph's essential elements.

2. Nature of the copyrighted work

Although the Supreme Court has ruled that the availability of copyright protection should not depend on the artistic quality or merit of a work, fair use analyses consider certain aspects of the work to be relevant, such as whether it is fictional or non-fictional.

To prevent the private ownership of work that rightfully belongs in the public domain, facts and ideas are not protected by copyright—only their particular expression or fixation merits such protection. On the other hand, the social usefulness of freely available information can weigh against the appropriateness of copyright for certain fixations. The Zapruder film of the assassination of President Kennedy, for example, was purchased and copyrighted by Time magazine. Yet its copyright was not upheld, in the name of the public interest, when Time tried to enjoin the reproduction of stills from the film in a history book on the subject in Time Inc v. Bernard Geis Associates.

In the decisions of the Second Circuit in Salinger v. Random House and in New Era Publications Int'l v. Henry Holt & Co, the aspect of whether the copied work has been previously published was considered crucial, assuming the right of the original author to control the circumstances of the publication of his work or preference not to publish at all. However, Judge Pierre N. Leval views this importation of certain aspects of France's droit moral d'artiste (moral rights of the artist) into American copyright law as "bizarre and contradictory" because it sometimes grants greater protection to works that were created for private purposes that have little to do with the public goals of copyright law, than to those works that copyright was initially conceived to protect. This is not to claim that unpublished works, or, more specifically, works not intended for publication, do not deserve legal protection, but that any such protection should come from laws about privacy, rather than laws about copyright. The statutory fair use provision was amended in response to these concerns by adding a final sentence: "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."

3. Amount and substantiality
The third factor assesses the amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work that has been used. In general, the less that is used in relation to the whole, the more likely the use will be considered fair.

Using most or all of a work does not bar a finding of fair use. It simply makes the third factor less favorable to the defendant. For instance, in Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. copying entire television programs for private viewing was upheld as fair use, at least when the copying is done for the purposes of time-shifting. In Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corporation, the Ninth Circuit held that copying an entire photo to use as a thumbnail in online search results did not even weigh against fair use, "if the secondary user only copies as much as is necessary for his or her intended use".

However, even the use of a small percentage of a work can make the third factor unfavorable to the defendant, because the "substantiality" of the portion used is considered in addition to the amount used. For instance, in Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a news article's quotation of fewer than 400 words from President Ford's 200,000-word memoir was sufficient to make the third fair use factor weigh against the defendants, because the portion taken was the "heart of the work". This use was ultimately found not to be fair.

4. Effect upon work's value
The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original. The burden of proof here rests on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work.

For example, in Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios, the copyright owner, Universal, failed to provide any empirical evidence that the use of Betamax had either reduced their viewership or negatively impacted their business. In Harper & Row, the case regarding President Ford's memoirs, the Supreme Court labeled the fourth factor "the single most important element of fair use" and it has enjoyed some level of primacy in fair use analyses ever since. Yet the Supreme Court's more recent announcement in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc that "all [four factors] are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright" has helped modulate this emphasis in interpretation.

In evaluating the fourth factor, courts often consider two kinds of harm to the potential market for the original work.
 * First, courts consider whether the use in question acts as a direct market substitute for the original work. In Campbell, the Supreme Court stated that "when a commercial use amounts to mere duplication of the entirety of the original, it clearly supersedes the object of the original and serves as a market replacement for it, making it likely that cognizable market harm to the original will occur". In one instance, a court ruled that this factor weighed against a defendant who had made unauthorized movie trailers for video retailers, since his trailers acted as direct substitutes for the copyright owner's official trailers.
 * Second, courts also consider whether potential market harm might exist beyond that of direct substitution, such as in the potential existence of a licensing market. This consideration has weighed against commercial copy shops that make copies of articles in course-packs for college students, when a market already existed for the licensing of course-pack copies.

Courts recognize that certain kinds of market harm do not negate fair use, such as when a parody or negative review impairs the market of the original work. Copyright considerations may not shield a work against adverse criticism.

Additional factors
As explained by Judge Leval, courts are permitted to include additional factors in their analysis.

One such factor is acknowledgement of the copyrighted source. Giving the name of the photographer or author may help, but it does not automatically make a use fair. While plagiarism and copyright infringement are related matters, they are not identical. Plagiarism (using someone's words, ideas, images, etc. without acknowledgment) is a matter of professional ethics, while copyright is a matter of law, and protects exact expression, not ideas. One can plagiarize even a work that is not protected by copyright, for example by passing off a line from Shakespeare as one's own. Conversely, attribution prevents accusations of plagiarism, but it does not prevent infringement of copyright. For example, reprinting a copyrighted book without permission, while citing the original author, would be copyright infringement but not plagiarism.

Procedure and practice
The U.S. Supreme Court described fair use as an affirmative defense in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. This means that in litigation on copyright infringement, the defendant bears the burden of raising and proving that the use was fair and not an infringement. Thus, fair use need not even be raised as a defense unless the plaintiff first shows (or the defendant concedes) a prima facie case of copyright infringement. If the work was not copyrightable, the term had expired, or the defendant's work borrowed only a small amount, for instance, then the plaintiff cannot make out a prima facie case of infringement, and the defendant need not even raise the fair use defense. In addition, fair use is only one of many limitations, exceptions, and defenses to copyright infringement. Thus, a prima facie case can be defeated without relying on fair use. For instance, the Audio Home Recording Act establishes that it is legal, using certain technologies, to make copies of audio recordings for non-commercial personal use.

Some copyright owners claim infringement even in circumstances where the fair use defense would likely succeed, in hopes that the user will refrain from the use rather than spending resources in their defense. Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) cases that allege copyright infringement, patent infringement, defamation, or libel may come into conflict with the defendant's right to freedom of speech, and that possibility has prompted some jurisdictions to pass anti-SLAPP legislation that raises the plaintiff's burdens and risk.

Although fair use ostensibly permits certain uses without liability, many content creators and publishers try to avoid a potential court battle by seeking a legally unnecessary license from copyright owners for any use of non-public domain material, even in situations where a fair use defense would likely succeed. The simple reason is that the license terms negotiated with the copyright owner may be much less expensive than defending against a copyright suit, or having the mere possibility of a lawsuit threaten the publication of a work in which a publisher has invested significant resources.

Fair use rights take precedence over the author's interest. Thus the copyright holder cannot use a non-binding disclaimer, or notification, to revoke the right of fair use on works. However, binding agreements such as contracts or licence agreements may take precedence over fair use rights.

The practical effect of the fair use doctrine is that a number of conventional uses of copyrighted works are not considered infringing. For instance, quoting from a copyrighted work in order to criticize or comment upon it or teach students about it, is considered a fair use. Certain well-established uses cause few problems. A teacher who prints a few copies of a poem to illustrate a technique will have no problem on all four of the above factors (except possibly on amount and substantiality), but some cases are not so clear. All the factors are considered and balanced in each case: a book reviewer who quotes a paragraph as an example of the author's style will probably fall under fair use even though they may sell their review commercially; but a non-profit educational website that reproduces whole articles from technical magazines will probably be found to infringe if the publisher can demonstrate that the website affects the market for the magazine, even though the website itself is non-commercial.

Fair use is decided on a case-by-case basis, on the entirety of circumstances. The same act done by different means or for a different purpose can gain or lose fair use status.

Computer code
The Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc. case revolves around the use of application programming interfaces (APIs) used to define functionality of the Java programming language, created by Sun Microsystems and now owned by Oracle Corporation. Google used the APIs' definition and their structure, sequence and organization (SSO) in creating the Android operating system to support the mobile device market. Oracle had sued Google in 2010 over both patent and copyright violations, but after two cycles, the case matter was narrowed down to whether Google's use of the definition and SSO of Oracle's Java APIs (determined to be copyrightable) was within fair use. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Google, stating that while Google could defend its use in the nature of the copyrighted work, its use was not transformative, and more significantly, it commercially harmed Oracle as they were also seeking entry to the mobile market. However, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision, deciding that Google's actions satisfy all four tests for fair use, and that granting Oracle exclusive rights to use Java APIs on mobile markets "would interfere with, not further, copyright's basic creativity objectives."

Documentary films
In April 2006, the filmmakers of the Loose Change series were served with a lawsuit by Jules and Gédéon Naudet over the film's use of their footage, specifically footage of the firefighters discussing the collapse of the World Trade Center. With the help of an intellectual property lawyer, the creators of Loose Change successfully argued that a majority of the footage used was for historical purposes and was significantly transformed in the context of the film. They agreed to remove a few shots that were used as B-roll and served no purpose to the greater discussion. The case was settled and a potential multimillion-dollar lawsuit was avoided.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated also relied on fair use to feature several clips from copyrighted Hollywood productions. The director had originally planned to license these clips from their studio owners but discovered that studio licensing agreements would have prohibited him from using this material to criticize the entertainment industry. This prompted him to invoke the fair use doctrine, which permits limited use of copyrighted material to provide analysis and criticism of published works.

File sharing
In 2009, fair use appeared as a defense in lawsuits against filesharing. Charles Nesson argued that file-sharing qualifies as fair use in his defense of alleged filesharer Joel Tenenbaum. Kiwi Camara, defending alleged filesharer Jammie Thomas, announced a similar defense. However, the Court in the case at bar rejected the idea that file-sharing is fair use.

Internet publication
A U.S. court case from 2003, Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., provides and develops the relationship between thumbnails, inline linking, and fair use. In the lower District Court case on a motion for summary judgment, Arriba Soft's use of thumbnail pictures and inline linking from Kelly's website in Arriba Soft's image search engine was found not to be fair use. That decision was appealed and contested by Internet rights activists such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who argued that it was fair use.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found in favor of the defendant, Arriba Soft. In reaching its decision, the court utilized the statutory four-factor analysis. First, it found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative, noting that they were not meant to be viewed at high resolution as the original artwork was. Second, the photographs had already been published, diminishing the significance of their nature as creative works. Third, although normally making a "full" replication of a copyrighted work may appear to violate copyright, here it was found to be reasonable and necessary in light of the intended use. Lastly, the court found that the market for the original photographs would not be substantially diminished by the creation of the thumbnails. To the contrary, the thumbnail searches could increase the exposure of the originals. In looking at all these factors as a whole, the court found that the thumbnails were fair use and remanded the case to the lower court for trial after issuing a revised opinion on July 7, 2003. The remaining issues were resolved with a default judgment after Arriba Soft had experienced significant financial problems and failed to reach a negotiated settlement.

In August 2008, Judge Jeremy Fogel of the Northern District of California ruled in Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. that copyright holders cannot order a deletion of an online file without determining whether that posting reflected "fair use" of the copyrighted material. The case involved Stephanie Lenz, a writer and editor from Gallitzin, Pennsylvania, who made a home video of her thirteen-month-old son dancing to Prince's song "Let's Go Crazy" and posted the video on YouTube. Four months later, Universal Music, the owner of the copyright to the song, ordered YouTube to remove the video under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz notified YouTube immediately that her video was within the scope of fair use, and she demanded that it be restored. YouTube complied after six weeks, rather than the two weeks required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Lenz then sued Universal Music in California for her legal costs, claiming the music company had acted in bad faith by ordering removal of a video that represented fair use of the song. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a copyright owner must affirmatively consider whether the complained of conduct constituted fair use before sending a takedown notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, rather than waiting for the alleged infringer to assert fair use. 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015). "Even if, as Universal urges, fair use is classified as an 'affirmative defense,' we hold—for the purposes of the DMCA—fair use is uniquely situated in copyright law so as to be treated differently than traditional affirmative defenses. We conclude that because 17 U.S.C. § 107 created a type of non-infringing use, fair use is "authorized by the law" and a copyright holder must consider the existence of fair use before sending a takedown notification under § 512(c)."

In June 2011, Judge Philip Pro of the District of Nevada ruled in Righthaven v. Hoehn that the posting of an entire editorial article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal in a comment as part of an online discussion was unarguably fair use. Judge Pro noted that "Noncommercial, nonprofit use is presumptively fair. ... Hoehn posted the Work as part of an online discussion. ... This purpose is consistent with comment, for which 17 U.S.C. § 107 provides fair use protection. ... It is undisputed that Hoehn posted the entire work in his comment on the Website. ... wholesale copying does not preclude a finding of fair use. ... there is no genuine issue of material fact that Hoehn's use of the Work was fair and summary judgment is appropriate." On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Righthaven did not even have the standing needed to sue Hoehn for copyright infringement in the first place.

Professional communities
In addition to considering the four fair use factors, courts deciding fair use cases also look to the standards and practices of the professional community where the case comes from. Among the communities are documentarians, librarians, makers of Open Courseware, visual art educators, and communications professors.

Such codes of best practices have permitted communities of practice to make more informed risk assessments in employing fair use in their daily practice. For instance, broadcasters, cablecasters, and distributors typically require filmmakers to obtain errors and omissions insurance before the distributor will take on the film. Such insurance protects against errors and omissions made during the copyright clearance of material in the film. Before the Documentary Filmmakers' Statement of Best Practices in Fair Use was created in 2005, it was nearly impossible to obtain errors and omissions insurance for copyright clearance work that relied in part on fair use. This meant documentarians had either to obtain a license for the material or to cut it from their films. In many cases, it was impossible to license the material because the filmmaker sought to use it in a critical way. Soon after the best practices statement was released, all errors and omissions insurers in the U.S. shifted to begin offering routine fair use coverage.

Music sampling
Before 1991, sampling in certain genres of music was accepted practice and the copyright considerations were viewed as largely irrelevant. The strict decision against rapper Biz Markie's appropriation of a Gilbert O'Sullivan song in the case Grand Upright Music, Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records Inc. changed practices and opinions overnight. Samples now had to be licensed, as long as they rose "to a level of legally cognizable appropriation." This left the door open for the de minimis doctrine, for short or unrecognizable samples; such uses would not rise to the level of copyright infringement, because under the de minimis doctrine, "the law does not care about trifles." However, three years later, the Sixth Circuit effectively eliminated the de minimis doctrine in the Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films case, holding that artists must "get a license or do not sample". The Court later clarified that its opinion did not apply to fair use, but between Grand Upright and Bridgeport, practice had effectively shifted to eliminate unlicensed sampling.

Parody
Producers or creators of parodies of a copyrighted work have been sued for infringement by the targets of their ridicule, even though such use may be protected as fair use. These fair use cases distinguish between parodies, which use a work in order to poke fun at or comment on the work itself, and satire, which comments on something else. Courts have been more willing to grant fair use protections to parodies than to satires, but the ultimate outcome in either circumstance will turn on the application of the four fair use factors.

For example, when Tom Forsythe appropriated Barbie dolls for his photography project "Food Chain Barbie" (depicting several copies of the doll naked and disheveled and about to be baked in an oven, blended in a food mixer, and the like), Mattel lost its copyright infringement lawsuit against him because his work effectively parodies Barbie and the values she represents. In Rogers v. Koons, Jeff Koons tried to justify his appropriation of Art Rogers' photograph "Puppies" in his sculpture "String of Puppies" with the same parody defense. Koons lost because his work was not presented as a parody of Rogers' photograph in particular, but as a satire of society at large. This was insufficient to render the use fair.

In Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc the U.S. Supreme Court recognized parody as a potential fair use, even when done for profit. Roy Orbison's, Acuff-Rose Music, had sued 2 Live Crew in 1989 for their use of Orbison's "Oh, Pretty Woman" in a mocking rap version with altered lyrics. The Supreme Court viewed 2 Live Crew's version as a ridiculing commentary on the earlier work, and ruled that when the parody was itself the product rather than mere advertising, commercial nature did not bar the defense. The Campbell court also distinguished parodies from satire, which they described as a broader social critique not intrinsically tied to ridicule of a specific work and so not deserving of the same use exceptions as parody because the satirist's ideas are capable of expression without the use of the other particular work.

A number of appellate decisions have recognized that a parody may be a protected fair use, including the Second (Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp.); the Ninth (Mattel v. Walking Mountain Productions); and the Eleventh Circuits (Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co.). In the 2001 Suntrust Bank case, Suntrust Bank and the Margaret Mitchell estate unsuccessfully brought suit to halt the publication of The Wind Done Gone, which reused many of the characters and situations from Gone with the Wind but told the events from the point of view of the enslaved people rather than the slaveholders. The Eleventh Circuit, applying Campbell, found that The Wind Done Gone was fair use and vacated the district court's injunction against its publication.

Cases in which a satirical use was found to be fair include Blanch v. Koons and Williams v. Columbia Broadcasting Systems.

Text and data mining
The transformative nature of computer based analytical processes such as text mining, web mining and data mining has led many to form the view that such uses would be protected under fair use. This view was substantiated by the rulings of Judge Denny Chin in Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., a case involving mass digitisation of millions of books from research library collections. As part of the ruling that found the book digitisation project was fair use, the judge stated "Google Books is also transformative in the sense that it has transformed book text into data for purposes of substantive research, including data mining and text mining in new areas".

Text and data mining was subject to further review in Authors Guild v. HathiTrust, a case derived from the same digitization project mentioned above. Judge Harold Baer, in finding that the defendant's uses were transformative, stated that 'the search capabilities of the [HathiTrust Digital Library] have already given rise to new methods of academic inquiry such as text mining."

Reverse engineering
There is a substantial body of fair use law regarding reverse engineering of computer software, hardware, network protocols, encryption and access control systems.

Social media
In May 2015, artist Richard Prince released an exhibit of photographs at the Gagosian Gallery in New York, entitled "New Portraits". His exhibit consisted of screenshots of Instagram users' pictures, which were largely unaltered, with Prince's commentary added beneath. Although no Instagram users authorized Prince to use their pictures, Prince argued that the addition of his own commentary the pictures constituted fair use, such that he did not need permission to use the pictures or to pay royalties for his use. One of the pieces sold for $90,000. With regard to the works presented by Painter, the gallery where the pictures were showcased posted notices that "All images are subject to copyright." Several lawsuits were filed against Painter over the New Portraits exhibit. In 2024, Richard Prince and the galleries were ordered to pay $900,000 to the photographers.

Influence internationally
While U.S. fair use law has been influential in some countries, some countries have fair use criteria drastically different from those in the U.S., and some countries do not have a fair use framework at all. Some countries have the concept of fair dealing instead of fair use, while others use different systems of limitations and exceptions to copyright. Many countries have some reference to an exemption for educational use, though the extent of this exemption varies widely.

Sources differ on whether fair use is fully recognized by countries other than the United States. American University's infojustice.org published a compilation of portions of over 40 nations' laws that explicitly mention fair use or fair dealing, and asserts that some of the fair dealing laws, such as Canada's, have evolved (such as through judicial precedents) to be quite close to those of the United States. This compilation includes fair use provisions from Bangladesh, Israel, South Korea, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Uganda, and the United States. However, Paul Geller's 2009 International Copyright Law and Practice says that while some other countries recognize similar exceptions to copyright, only the United States and Israel fully recognize the concept of fair use.

The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), a lobby group of U.S. copyright industry bodies, has objected to international adoption of U.S.-style fair use exceptions, alleging that such laws have a dependency on common law and long-term legal precedent that may not exist outside the United States.

Israel
In November 2007, the Israeli Knesset passed a new copyright law that included a U.S.-style fair use exception. The law, which took effect in May 2008, permits the fair use of copyrighted works for purposes such as private study, research, criticism, review, news reporting, quotation, or instruction or testing by an educational institution. The law sets up four factors, similar to the U.S. fair use factors (see above), for determining whether a use is fair.

On September 2, 2009, the Tel Aviv District court ruled in The Football Association Premier League Ltd. v. Ploni that fair use is a user right. The court also ruled that streaming of live soccer games on the Internet is fair use. In doing so, the court analyzed the four fair use factors adopted in 2007 and cited U.S. case law, including Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. and Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc..

Malaysia
An amendment in 2012 to the section 13(2)(a) of the Copyright Act 1987 created an exception called 'fair dealing' which is not restricted in its purpose. The four factors for fair use as specified in US law are included.

Poland
Fair use exists in Polish law and is covered by the Polish copyright law articles 23 to 35.

Compared to the United States, Polish fair use distinguishes between private and public use. In Poland, when the use is public, its use risks fines. The defendant must also prove that his use was private when accused that it was not, or that other mitigating circumstances apply. Finally, Polish law treats all cases in which private material was made public as a potential copyright infringement, where fair use can apply, but has to be proven by reasonable circumstances.

Singapore
Section 35 of the Singaporean Copyright Act 1987 has been amended in 2004 to allow a 'fair dealing' exception for any purpose. The four fair use factors similar to US law are included in the new section 35.

South Korea
The Korean Copyright Act was amended to include a fair use provision, Article 35–3, in 2012. The law outlines a four-factor test similar to that used under U.S. law:

"In determining whether art. 35-3(1) above applies to a use of copyrighted work, the following factors must be considered: the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is of a non profit nature; the type or purpose of the copyrighted work; the amount and importance of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; the effect of the use of the copyrighted work upon the current market or the current value of the copyrighted work or on the potential market or the potential value of the copyrighted work."

Fair dealing
Fair dealing allows specific exceptions to copyright protections. The open-ended concept of fair use is generally not observed in jurisdictions where fair dealing is in place, although this does vary. Fair dealing is established in legislation in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, India, South Africa and the United Kingdom, among others.

Australia
While Australian copyright exceptions are based on the Fair Dealing system, since 1998 a series of Australian government inquiries have examined, and in most cases recommended, the introduction of a "flexible and open" Fair Use system into Australian copyright law. From 1998 to 2017 there have been eight Australian government inquiries which have considered the question of whether fair use should be adopted in Australia. Six reviews have recommended Australia adopt a "Fair Use" model of copyright exceptions: two enquiries specifically into the Copyright Act (1998, 2014); and four broader reviews (both 2004, 2013, 2016). One review (2000) recommended against the introduction of fair use and another (2005) issued no final report. Two of the recommendations were specifically in response to the stricter copyright rules introduced as part of the Australia–United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA), while the most recent two, by the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) and the Productivity Commission (PC) were with reference to strengthening Australia's "digital economy".

Canada
The Copyright Act of Canada establishes fair dealing in Canada, which allows specific exceptions to copyright protection. In 1985, the Sub-Committee on the Revision of Copyright rejected replacing fair dealing with an open-ended system, and in 1986 the Canadian government agreed that "the present fair dealing provisions should not be replaced by the substantially wider 'fair use' concept". Since then, the Canadian fair dealing exception has broadened. It is now similar in effect to U.S. fair use, even though the frameworks are different.

CCH Canadian Ltd v. Law Society of Upper Canada [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada case that establishes the bounds of fair dealing in Canadian copyright law. The Law Society of Upper Canada was sued for copyright infringement for providing photocopy services to researchers. The Court unanimously held that the Law Society's practice fell within the bounds of fair dealing.

United Kingdom
Within the United Kingdom, fair dealing is a legal doctrine that provides an exception to the nation's copyright law in cases where the copyright infringement is for the purposes of non-commercial research or study, criticism or review, or for the reporting of current events.

Policy arguments
A balanced copyright law provides an economic benefit to many high-tech businesses such as search engines and software developers. Fair use is also crucial to non-technology industries such as insurance, legal services, and newspaper publishers.

On September 12, 2007, the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), a group representing companies including Google Inc., Microsoft Inc., Oracle Corporation, Sun Microsystems, Yahoo! and other high-tech companies, released a study that found that fair use exceptions to US copyright laws were responsible for more than $4.5 trillion in annual revenue for the United States economy representing one-sixth of the total US GDP. The study was conducted using a methodology developed by the World Intellectual Property Organization.

The study found that fair use dependent industries are directly responsible for more than eighteen percent of US economic growth and nearly eleven million American jobs. "As the United States economy becomes increasingly knowledge-based, the concept of fair use can no longer be discussed and legislated in the abstract. It is the very foundation of the digital age and a cornerstone of our economy," said Ed Black, President and CEO of CCIA. "Much of the unprecedented economic growth of the past ten years can actually be credited to the doctrine of fair use, as the Internet itself depends on the ability to use content in a limited and unlicensed manner."

Fair Use Week
Fair Use Week is an international event that celebrates fair use and fair dealing. Fair Use Week was first proposed on a Fair Use Allies listserv, which was an outgrowth of the Library Code of Best Practices Capstone Event, celebrating the development and promulgation of ARL's Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Academic and Research Libraries. While the idea was not taken up nationally, Copyright Advisor at Harvard University, launched the first ever Fair Use Week at Harvard University in February 2014, with a full week of activities celebrating fair use. The first Fair Use Week included blog posts from national and international fair use experts, live fair use panels, fair use workshops, and a Fair Use Stories Tumblr blog, where people from the world of art, music, film, and academia shared stories about the importance of fair use to their community. The first Fair Use Week was so successful that in 2015 ARL teamed up with Courtney and helped organize the Second Annual Fair Use Week, with participation from many more institutions. ARL also launched an official Fair Use Week website, which was transferred from Pia Hunter, who attended the Library Code of Best Practices Capstone Event and had originally purchased the domain name fairuseweek.org.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Fair use


text:
Flying car

A flying car or roadable aircraft is a type of vehicle which can function both as a road vehicle and as an aircraft. As used here, this includes vehicles which drive as motorcycles when on the road. The term "flying car" is also sometimes used to include hovercars and/or VTOL personal air vehicles. Many prototypes have been built since the early 20th century, using a variety of flight technologies. Most have been designed to take off and land conventionally using a runway. Although VTOL projects are increasing, none has yet been built in more than a handful of numbers.

Their appearance is often predicted by futurologists, and many concept designs have been promoted. Their failure to become a practical reality has led to the catchphrase "Where's my flying car?", as a paradigm for the failure of predicted technologies to appear. Flying cars are also a popular theme in fantasy and science fiction stories.

Early 20th century
In the late 1800s, American immigrant Gustave Whitehead designed aircraft with wheels and a gasoline-powered engine, including his no. 21 model built in 1901. Consensus among historians is that Whitehead's no. 21 did not achieve sustained self-powered flight. Some historians continue to assert Whitehead's craft flew at various dates prior to the Wright Brothers' craft, based on a series of unverifiable and contradictory eye-witness accounts.

Aircraft designer Glenn Curtiss built his Autoplane in 1917. It had a pusher propeller for flight, with removable flight surfaces including a triplane wing, canard foreplane and twin tails. It was able to hop, but not fly.

In 1935, Constantinos Vlachos built a prototype of a 'tri-phibian' vehicle with a circular wing, but it caught fire after the engine exploded while he was demonstrating it in Washington, D.C. Vlachos was badly injured and spent several months in hospital. The machine is most notable for a newsreel that captured the incident.

The Autogiro Company of America AC-35 was a prototype roadable autogyro, flown on 26 March 1936 by test pilot James G. Ray. Forward thrust was initially provided by twin counter-rotating propellers for thrust, later replaced with a single propeller. On 26 October 1936, the aircraft was converted to roadable configuration. Ray drove it to the main entrance of the Commerce Building, Washington, D.C., where it was accepted by John H. Geisse, chief of the Aeronautics Branch. Although it had been successfully tested, it did not enter production.

The first fixed wing roadable aircraft to fly was built by Waldo Waterman. Waterman was associated with Curtiss while Curtiss was pioneering amphibious aircraft at North Island on San Diego Bay in the 1910s. On 21 February 1937, Waterman's Arrowbile first took to the air. The Arrowbile was a development of Waterman's tailless aircraft, the Whatsit. It had a wingspan of 38 ft and a length of 20 ft. On the ground and in the air it was powered by a Studebaker engine. It could fly at 112 mph and drive at 56 mph.

In 1942, the British army built the Hafner Rotabuggy, an experimental roadable autogyro that was developed with the intention of producing a way of air-dropping off-road vehicles. Although initial tests showed that the Rotabuggy was prone to severe vibration at speeds greater than 45 mph, with improvements the Rotabuggy achieved a flight speed of 70 mph. However, the introduction of gliders that could carry vehicles (such as the Waco Hadrian and Airspeed Horsa) led to the project's cancellation.

Late 20th century
Although several designs (such as the ConVairCar) have flown, none have enjoyed commercial success, and those that have flown are not widely known by the general public. The most successful example, in that several were made and one is still flying, is the 1949 Taylor Aerocar.

In 1946, the Fulton FA-2 Airphibian was an American made flying car designed by Robert Edison Fulton Jr., it was an aluminum-bodied car, built with independent suspension, aircraft-sized wheels, and a six-cylinder 165 hp engine. The fabric wings were easily attached to the fuselage, converting the car into a plane. Four prototypes were built. Charles Lindbergh flew it 1950 and, although it was not a commercial success (financial costs of airworthiness certification forced him to relinquish control of the company, which never developed it further), it is now in the Smithsonian.

The Aerocar, designed and built by Molt Taylor, made a successful flight in December 1949, and in following years versions underwent a series of road and flying tests. Chuck Berry featured the concept in his 1956 song "You Can't Catch Me", and in December 1956 the Civil Aviation Authority approved the design for mass production, but despite wide publicity and an improved version produced in 1989, Taylor did not succeed in getting the flying car into production. In total, six Aerocars were built. It is considered to be one of the first practical flying cars.

One notable design was Henry Smolinski's Mizar, made by mating the rear end of a Cessna Skymaster with a Ford Pinto, but it disintegrated during test flights killing Smolinski and the pilot.

Project Prodigal was a British Army concept in the late 1950s early 1960s for a "Jumping Jeep" to overcome obstacles on the battlefield with entrants were BAC Boulton Paul, Bristol Siddeley, Folland, Handley Page  Saunders Roe, Short Brothers Vickers-Armstrongs and Westland.

Moller began developing VTOL craft in the late 1960s, but no Moller vehicle has ever achieved free flight out of ground effect. The Moller Skycar M400 was a project for a personal VTOL (vertical take-off and landing) aircraft which is powered by four pairs of in-tandem Wankel rotary engines. The proposed Autovolantor model had an all-electric version powered by Altairnano batteries. The company has been dormant since 2015.

In the mid-1980s, former Boeing engineer Fred Barker founded Flight Innovations Inc. and began the development of the Sky Commuter, a small duct fans-based VTOL aircraft. It was a compact, 14 ft two-passenger and was made primarily of composite materials. In 2008, the remaining prototype was sold for £86k on eBay.

21st century

In 2009 the U.S., the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated the $65 million Transformer program to develop a four-person roadable aircraft by 2015. The vehicle was to have had VTOL capability and a 280 mi range. AAI Corporation and Lockheed Martin were awarded contracts. The program was cancelled in 2013.

The Parajet Skycar utilises a paramotor for propulsion and a parafoil for lift. The main body consists of a modified dune buggy. It has a top speed of 80 mi/h and a maximum range of 180 mi in flight. On the ground it has a top speed of 112 mi/h and a maximum range of 249 mi. Parajet flew and drove its prototype from London to Timbuktu in January 2009.

The Maverick Flying Dune Buggy was designed by the Indigenous People's Technology and Education Center of Florida as an off-road vehicle that could unfurl an advanced parachute and then travel by air over impassable terrain when roadways were no longer usable. The 1100 lb 'Maverick' vehicle is powered by a 128 hp engine that can also drive a five-bladed pusher propeller. It was initially conceived in order to help minister to remote Amazon rainforest communities, but will also be marketed for visual pipeline inspection and other similar activities in desolate areas or difficult terrain.

The Plane Driven PD-1 Roadable Glastar is a modification to the Glastar Sportsman GS-2 to make a practical roadable aircraft. The approach is novel in that it uses a mostly stock aircraft with a modified landing gear "pod" that carries the engine for road propulsion. The wings fold along the side, and the main landing gear and engine pod slide aft in driving configuration to compensate for the rearward center of gravity with the wings folded, and provide additional stability for road travel.

The Super Sky Cycle was an American homebuilt roadable gyroplane designed and manufactured by The Butterfly Aircraft LLC. It is a registered motorcycle. At the 2014 Pioneers Festival at Wien (Austria) AeroMobil presented their version 3.0 of their flying car. The prototype was conceived as a vehicle that can be converted from an automobile to an aircraft. The version 2.5 proof-of-concept took 20 years to develop and first flew in 2013. CEO Juraj Vaculik said that the company planned to move flying cars to market: "the plan is that in 2017 we'll be able to announce ... the first flying roadster." In 2016, AeroMobil was test-flying a prototype that obtained Slovak ultralight certification. When the final product will be available or how much it will cost is not yet specified. In 2018, it unveiled a concept that resembled a flying sportscar with VTOL capability. The Aeromobil 2.5 has folding wings and a Rotax 912 engine. It can travel at 124 mph with a range of 430 mi, and flew for the first time in 2013. On 29 October 2014, Slovak startup AeroMobil s.r.o. unveiled AeroMobil 3.0 at Vienna Pioneers Festival.

Klein Vision in Slovakia have developed a prototype AirCar, which drives like a sports car and for flight has a pusher propeller with twin tailbooms, and foldout wings. In June 2021, the prototype carried out a 35-minute flight between airports. It was type certified as an aircraft in January 2022.

The Terrafugia Transition is a roadable aircraft intended to be classed as a Personal Air Vehicle. It can fold its wings in 30 seconds and drive the front wheels, enabling it to operate both as a traditional road vehicle and as a general aviation aeroplane with a range of 500 mi. An operational prototype was displayed at Oshkosh in 2008 and its first flight took place on 2009-03-05. It will carry two people plus luggage and its Rotax 912S engine operates on premium unleaded gas. It was approved by the FAA in June 2010.

The production-ready single-engine, roadable PAL-V Liberty autogyro, or gyrocopter, debuted at the Geneva Motor Show in March 2018, then became the first flying car in production, and was set to launch in 2020, with full production scheduled for 2021 in Gujarat, India. The PAL-V ONE is a hybrid of a gyrocopter with a leaning 3-wheel motorcycle. It has two seats and a 160 kW flight certified gasoline engine. It has a top speed of 180 km/h on land and in air, and weighs 910 kg max.

On 15 April 2021, Los Altos, California, became home to the world's first consumer flying car showroom. However, as yet there are no certified flying cars in production.

In 2023 Doroni Aerospace earned an official FAA Airworthiness Certification. It is powered by ten independent propulsion systems. They company claimed a top speed of 140 mph and a 60-mile range. It includes two electric motors with patented ducted propellers. The machine is 23 ft long and 14 ft wide.

Design
A flying car must be capable of safe and reliable operation both on public roads and in the air. Current types require manual control by both a driver and a pilot. For mass adoption, it would also need to be environmentally friendly, able to fly without a fully qualified pilot at the controls, and come at affordable purchase and running costs.

Design configurations vary widely, from modified road vehicles such as the AVE Mizar at one extreme to modified aircraft such as the Plane Driven PD-1 at the other. Most are dedicated flying car designs. While wheeled propulsion is necessary on the road, in the air lift may be generated by fixed wings, helicopter rotors or direct engine power. The Alef Model A project offers an unusual configuration in which the body of the car is hollow and the sides are slabs; in the air it rolls sideways so that the slabs become a biplane wing. The cabin remains upright.

Lift
Like other aircraft, lift in flight is provided by a fixed wing, spinning rotor or direct powered lift. The powered helicopter rotor and direct lift both offer VTOL capability, while the fixed wing and autogyro rotor take off conventionally from a runway.

The simplest and earliest approach was to take a driveable car and attach removable flying surfaces and propeller. However, when on the road, such a design must either tow its removable parts on a separate trailer or leave them behind and drive back to them before taking off again.

Other conventional takeoff fixed-wing designs, such as the Terrafugia Transition, include folding wings that the car carries with it when driven on the road.

Vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) is attractive, as it avoids the need for a runway and greatly increases operational flexibility. Typical designs include rotorcraft and ducted fan powered lift configurations. Most design concepts have inherent problems.

Rotorcraft include helicopters with powered rotors and autogyros with free-spinning rotors. For road use, a rotor must, like many naval helicopters, be either two-bladed or foldable. The quadcopter requires only a simple control system with no tail. The autogyro relies on a separate thrust system to build up airspeed, spin the rotor and generate lift. However, some autogyros have rotors that can be spun up on the ground and then disengaged, allowing the aircraft to jump-start vertically. The PAL-V Liberty is an example of the autogyro type.

Ducted-fan aircraft such as the Moller Skycar tend to easily lose stability and have been unable to travel at greater than 30–40 knots.

Power
The flying car places unique demands on the vehicle power train. For a given all-up weight, an aero engine must deliver higher power than its typical road equivalent. However, on the road the vehicle must handle well and not be overpowered. Power must also be diverted between the airborne and road drive mechanisms. Some designs therefore have multiple engines, with the road engine being supplemented, or even replaced by, additional flight engines.

As with other vehicles, power has traditionally been supplied by internal combustion engines, but electric power is undergoing rapid development. It is coming into increasing use on road vehicles, but the weight of the batteries currently makes it unsuited to aircraft. However its low environmental signature makes it attractive for the short trips and dense urban environments envisaged for the flying car.

On the road, most flying cars drive the road wheels in the conventional way. A few use the aircraft propeller in similar manner to an airboat, but this is inefficient.

In the air, a flying car will typically obtain forward thrust from one or more propellers or ducted fans. A few have a powered helicopter rotor. Jet engines are not used due to the ground hazard posed by the hot, high-velocity exhaust stream.

Safety
In order to operate safely, a flying car must be certified independently as both a road vehicle and an aircraft, by the respective authorities. The person controlling the vehicle must also be licensed as both driver and pilot, and the vehicle maintained according to both regimes.

Mechanically, the requirements of powered flight are so challenging that every opportunity must be taken to keep weight to a minimum. A typical airframe is therefore lightweight and easily damaged. On the other hand, a road vehicle must be able to withstand significant impact loads from casual incidents while stationary, as well as low-speed and high-speed impacts, and the high strength this demands can add considerable weight. A practical flying car must be both strong enough to pass road safety standards and light enough to fly. Any propeller or rotor blade also creates a hazard to passers-by when on the ground, especially if it is spinning; they must be permanently shrouded, or folded away on landing.

For widespread adoption, as envisaged in the near future, it will not be practicable for every driver to qualify as a pilot and the rigorous maintenance currently demanded for aircraft will be uneconomic. Flying cars will have to become largely autonomous and highly reliable. The density of traffic will require automated routing and collision-avoidance systems. To manage the inevitable periodic failures and emergency landings, there will need to be sufficient designated landing sites across built-up areas. In addition, poor weather conditions could make the craft unsafe to fly.

Regulatory regimes are being developed in anticipation of a large increase in the numbers of autonomous flying cars and personal air vehicles in the near future, and compliance with these regimes will be necessary for safe flight.

Control
A basic flying car requires the person at the controls to be both a qualified road driver and aircraft pilot. This is impractical for the majority of people and so wider adoption will require computer systems to de-skill piloting. These skills include aircraft manoeuvring, navigation and emergency procedures, all in potentially crowded airspace. The onboard control system will also need to interact with other systems such as air traffic control and collision-risk monitoring. A practical flying car may need to be capable of full autonomy, in which people are present only as passengers.

Environment
A flying car capable of widespread use must operate acceptably within a heavily populated urban environment. The lift and propulsion systems must be quiet enough not to cause a nuisance, and must not create excessive pollution. For example, pollution emissions standards for road vehicles must be met.

The clear environmental benefits of electric power are a strong incentive for its development.

Cost
The needs for the propulsion system to be both small and powerful, the vehicle structure both light and strong, and the control systems fully integrated and autonomous, can only be met at present, if at all, using advanced and expensive technologies. This may prove a significant barrier to widespread adoption.

Flying cars are used for relatively short distances at high frequency. They travel at lower speeds and altitudes than conventional passenger aircraft. However optimal fuel efficiency for aeroplanes is obtained at higher speeds and altitudes, so a flying car's energy efficiency will be lower than that of a conventional aircraft. Similarly, the flying car's road performance is compromised by the requirements of flight and the need to carry around the various extra parts, so it is also less economical than a conventional motor car.

Industry groups
In April 2012, the International Flying Car Association was established to be the "central resource center for information and communication between the flying car industry, news networks, governments, and those seeking further information worldwide". Because flying cars need practical regulations that are mostly dealt with on a regional level, several regional associations were established as well, with the European Flying Car Association (EFCA) representing these national member associations on a pan-European level (51 independent countries, including the European Union Member States, the Accession Candidates and Russia, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine). The associations are also organizing racing competitions for roadable aircraft in Europe, the European Roadable Aircraft Prix (ERAP), mainly to increase awareness about this type of aircraft among a broader audience.

List of flying cars

 * Aerauto PL.5C
 * Italy
 * Folding wings
 * 1949
 * Flown
 * 1
 * Aerocar
 * US
 * Detachable wings
 * 1946
 * Flown
 * 5
 * 4 Aerocars and one Aerocar III built (The Mk. II was not a flying car).
 * Aerocar 2000
 * US
 * Detachable wings
 * 2000 approx.
 * Flown
 * AeroMobil
 * Slovakia
 * Folding wings
 * 2013
 * Flown
 * v3.0 crashed. 4.0 under development
 * Alef Model A
 * US
 * Tilting biplane
 * 2023
 * Unbuilt
 * 0
 * Attracted significant investment.
 * Audi Pop.Up Next
 * Germany
 * Quadcopter
 * 2018
 * Unbuilt
 * 1
 * Autogiro Company of America AC-35
 * US
 * Autogyro
 * 1935
 * Flown
 * 1
 * AVE Mizar
 * US
 * Detachable wings
 * 1971
 * Flown
 * 1
 * Bel Geddes' "Motorcar No. 9."
 * US
 * Folding wings
 * 1945
 * Unbuilt
 * Concept
 * Bryan Autoplane
 * US
 * Folding wings
 * 1953
 * Flown
 * 2
 * Model II converted to Model III.
 * Butterfly Super Sky Cycle
 * US
 * Flown
 * 2009
 * Flown
 * Homebuild autogyro. Registered motorcycle
 * Convair Model 116 ConVairCar
 * US
 * Detachable wings
 * 1946
 * Flown
 * 1
 * Convair Model 118 ConVairCar
 * US
 * Detachable wings
 * 1947
 * Flown
 * 2
 * Second vehicle re-used the aircraft section from the first.
 * Curtiss Autoplane
 * US
 * Detachable wings
 * 1917
 * Not flown
 * 1
 * Achieved short hops
 * Dixon Flying Ginny
 * US
 * Helicopter
 * 1940
 * Flown
 * 1
 * Co-axial rotor.
 * Ford Volante
 * US
 * Ducted fan
 * 1958
 * Unbuilt
 * Concept.
 * Fulton Airphibian
 * US
 * Detachable wings
 * 1946
 * Flown
 * 4
 * Hafner Rotabuggy
 * UK
 * Detachable rotor
 * 1942
 * Flown
 * Willys MB jeep, air-towed as a rotor kite.
 * Handley Page HP.120
 * UK
 * Lift fan
 * 1961
 * Unflown
 * 2-man VTOL convertible "Jumping Jeep" project
 * I-TEC Maverick
 * US
 * Parafoil
 * 2008
 * Flown
 * Klein Vision AirCar
 * Slovakia
 * Folding wings
 * 2021
 * Flown
 * 1
 * Production model in development.
 * Lebouder Autoplane
 * France
 * Detachable wings
 * 1973
 * Flown
 * 1
 * Won prizes.
 * Moller M400 Skycar
 * US
 * Vectored fan
 * 1960s
 * Not flown
 * Unsuccessful as of 2019
 * Monster Garage "Red Baron"
 * US
 * Detachable wings
 * 2005
 * Flown
 * 1
 * Based on a Panoz Esperante sports car, with detachable airframe.
 * PAL-V Liberty
 * Netherlands
 * Autogyro
 * 2012
 * Flown
 * Production model under development.
 * Parajet Skycar
 * UK
 * Parafoil
 * 2008
 * Flown
 * 1
 * Piasecki VZ-8 Airgeep
 * US
 * Ducted rotor
 * 1959
 * Flown
 * VTOL "flying jeep".
 * Plane Driven PD-1
 * US
 * Folding wings
 * 2010
 * Flown
 * 2
 * Modified Glasair Sportsman 2+2 aircraft. The second prototype is designated the PD-2.
 * Samson Switchblade
 * US
 * Folding wings
 * 2023
 * Flown
 * 1
 * Scaled Composites Model 367 BiPod
 * US
 * Detachable wings
 * 2011
 * Not flown
 * 1
 * Twin-fuselage technology development vehicle. Not flown.
 * Skroback Roadable Airplane
 * US
 * Multiplane
 * 1925
 * Not flown
 * 1
 * SkyRider X2R
 * US
 * Unbuilt
 * Taylor Aerocar
 * See Aerocar
 * Terrafugia Transition
 * US
 * Folding wings
 * 2009
 * Flown
 * Terrafugia TF-X
 * US
 * Hybrid
 * Unbuilt
 * VTOL convertiplane with folding wings and rotors.
 * Urban Aeronautics X-Hawk
 * Israel
 * Unbuilt
 * VTOL. Under development.
 * Vlachos Triphibian
 * US
 * 1936
 * Wagner Aerocar
 * Germany
 * Helicopter
 * 1965
 * Flown
 * Waterman Arrowbile
 * US
 * Folding wings
 * 1935
 * Flown
 * 1
 * Whitehead No. 21
 * US
 * Folding wings
 * 1901
 * Not flown
 * 1
 * }
 * Detachable wings
 * 2011
 * Not flown
 * 1
 * Twin-fuselage technology development vehicle. Not flown.
 * Skroback Roadable Airplane
 * US
 * Multiplane
 * 1925
 * Not flown
 * 1
 * SkyRider X2R
 * US
 * Unbuilt
 * Taylor Aerocar
 * See Aerocar
 * Terrafugia Transition
 * US
 * Folding wings
 * 2009
 * Flown
 * Terrafugia TF-X
 * US
 * Hybrid
 * Unbuilt
 * VTOL convertiplane with folding wings and rotors.
 * Urban Aeronautics X-Hawk
 * Israel
 * Unbuilt
 * VTOL. Under development.
 * Vlachos Triphibian
 * US
 * 1936
 * Wagner Aerocar
 * Germany
 * Helicopter
 * 1965
 * Flown
 * Waterman Arrowbile
 * US
 * Folding wings
 * 1935
 * Flown
 * 1
 * Whitehead No. 21
 * US
 * Folding wings
 * 1901
 * Not flown
 * 1
 * }
 * VTOL. Under development.
 * Vlachos Triphibian
 * US
 * 1936
 * Wagner Aerocar
 * Germany
 * Helicopter
 * 1965
 * Flown
 * Waterman Arrowbile
 * US
 * Folding wings
 * 1935
 * Flown
 * 1
 * Whitehead No. 21
 * US
 * Folding wings
 * 1901
 * Not flown
 * 1
 * }
 * Flown
 * 1
 * Whitehead No. 21
 * US
 * Folding wings
 * 1901
 * Not flown
 * 1
 * }
 * 1
 * }
 * }

Popular culture
The flying car was and remains a common feature of conceptions of the future, both predicted and imaginary.

Anticipation
Flying cars have been under development since the early days of motor transport and aviation, and many futurologists have predicted their imminent arrival. Aircraft manufacturer Glenn Curtiss unveiled his unflyable Autoplane in 1917. In 1940, vehicle manufacturer Henry Ford predicted that; "Mark my word: a combination airplane and motorcar is coming. You may smile, but it will come.”

From 1945, industrial designer Norman Bel Geddes promoted his concept for a streamlined flying car with folding wings. In the late 1950s, Ford's Advanced Design studio publicised a 3/8 scale concept car model, the Volante Tri-Athodyne. It featured three ducted fans, each with its own motor, that would lift it off the ground and move it through the air. Ford admitted that "the day where there will be an aero-car in every garage is still some time off", also suggesting that "the Volante indicates one direction that the styling of such a vehicle would take".

Where's my flying car?
Despite a century of anticipation, no flying car has yet proved a practical proposition and they remain an experimental curiosity. This long-term failure to make any impact on society has led to the meme, "Where's my flying car?"

"Here we are, less than a month until the turn of the millennium, and what I want to know is, what happened to the flying cars? We're about to become Americans of the 21st century. People have been predicting what we'd be like for more than 100 years, and our accoutrements don't entirely live up to expectations. ... Our failure to produce flying cars seems like a particular betrayal since it was so central to our image."

"This new millennium sucks! It's exactly the same as the old millennium! You know why? No flying cars!"

The question "Where's my flying car?" has become emblematic of the wider failure of many modern technologies to match futuristic visions that were promoted in earlier decades.

Fictional flying cars

The flying car has been depicted in many works of fantasy and science fiction. Some notable examples include:

 * Supercar starred in its own children's TV show in the UK, between 1961 and 1962. It was jet-powered with VTOL capability, and on the road it hovered rather than used wheels. Created by Gerry Anderson, it was the first show to credit his supermarionation puppet technology.
 * The Jetsons American animated cartoon sitcom was originally aired from 1962 to 1963. It featured flying cars as ubiquitous. They typically had a large bubble roof, the design being inspired by a Ford concept road car from 1954, the FX-Atmos.
 * The film Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968) features a car that flies via magic.
 * A flying 1974 AMC Matador coupe features in The Man with the Golden Gun (1974), the ninth in the James Bond film series. The Matador coupe is transformed into an aeroplane in similar manner to the AVE Mizar, by attaching a large wing with engine and tail unit to the car. In aircraft configuration it is 9.15 m long, 12.80 m in span and 3.08 m high. The film prop was not airworthy and a 1 m-long remote control model was used for the aerial sequences.
 * In the Blade Runner (original 1982) films, flying cars are called spinners. They have vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) capability. The vehicle was conceived and designed by Syd Mead who described it as an "aerodyne"—a vehicle which directs air downward to create lift, though press kits for the film stated that the spinner was propelled by three engines: "conventional internal combustion, jet, and anti-gravity" A Spinner prop is on permanent exhibit at the Science Fiction Museum and Hall of Fame in Seattle, Washington.
 * In the Back to the Future (1985) films, the DeLorean time machine car was modified to be capable of normal flight.
 * In the film The Fifth Element (1997), as with The Jetsons, flying cars are the main means of personal transport. The production design for the film was developed by French comics creators Jean Giraud and Jean-Claude Mézières. Director Luc Besson had been inspired by Mézières' book The Circles of Power.

title: Flying car