The Copyright system relies on a delicate balance between protecting intellectual property rights and promoting the advancement of art and science in our society. If there is too much protection covering the works of artists, it will allow no growth to stem from those seeds of intellectual creativity. The opposite, having too little protection, can have the same effect, however, because without the reward provided through the protection of an artist’s work, creative thinkers would have little drive to bring their creative inventions to life. This teeter-totter affect of the copyright law makes it especially difficult to clearly define fair use, particularly in cases in which one intellectual creator transforms the work of another, causing a lack of “consensus on the meaning of fair use” (Leval).
The purpose of the Copyright law is to both protect intellectual property rights and promote the arts and sciences. However, it leans more on the side of protecting the intellectual property rights of intellectual property holders. In that purpose, according to Intellectual Property Rights Attorneys Charles Ainsworth and Jason Saunders, the Copyright law fulfills its purpose. In some ways, it goes “a little too far in achieving” that purpose (Saunders). Thus, by including a definition of transformativeness, which favors fair use of copyrighted material, the balance of the Copyright law may tip in order to be more equally fair to both parties in intellectual property court cases. Additionally, a definition of transformative use, being an extension of the “purpose and character” factor of the Fair Use Doctrine, may clear up the confusion surrounding the first factor, as well as “reduce the number of differing opinions of courts” (Ainsworth). By adding a definition of transformativeness to the Fair Use Doctrine, the balance of the Copyright law would be more stabilized and thus would become a fairer system in the court of law.