In 2009, fair dealing as a defence appeared in case-sharing lawsuits. Charles Nesson argued that file sharing was characterized as a fair use in the defence of alleged terrorist Joel Tenenbaum.  Kiwi Camara, who defended alleged dossier Jammie Thomas, announced a similar defence[ 32]. In this case, however, the Court rejected the idea that file sharing was fair dealing.  Section 35 of the Singaporean Copyright Act 1987 was amended in 2004 to allow for a fair trade exemption for any use. The four fair dealing factors that are similar to U.S. legislation are included in the new Section 35.  These criteria are relevant in determining whether the basic doctrine of fair dealing in the first sentence of the first sentence applies: “Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including reproduction in copies or phonographic recordings or other means mentioned in this section, for purposes such as criticism , commentary, news coverage, teaching (including multiple copies for teaching), scholarship or research, does not constitute copyright infringement. Manufacturers or creators of parodies of a copyrighted work have been sued for violation by the objectives of their ridicule, even though such use can be protected as fair dealing. These cases of fair use distinguish between parodies that use a work to mock the work itself and satire, or to comment on it or to comment on something else.
Courts were more inclined to protect fair dealing parodies than satires, but the end result in both cases will influence the application of the four fair dealing factors. The less you take, the more likely it is that your copy will be excused as fair dealing. But even if you take a small part of a work, your copy will not be a fair use if the part taken is the “heart” of the work. In other words, you`re in trouble if you take the most memorable aspect of a work. For example, it probably wouldn`t be a fair use to copy the opening guitar riff and the words “I can`t be satisfied” with the song “Satisfaction.” [A] Rezensent can quote quite quite from the original work, if his project is really and really to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is equally clear that, if he cites the most important parts of the work in this way, in order not to criticize, but to replace the use of the original work, and to replace the verification for them, such use is considered in law as a piracy … Among the cases where satirical use has been found to be fair is blanch v. Koons and Williams v Columbia Broadcasting Systems.  No.
Copyright violations and plagiarism are two different things. Plagiarism is the diversion of the work of another who yields like his, without specifying the source. It is possible to plagiarize a work without infringing copyright, for example, if you take someone else`s ideas without there being a good match, even if you do not copy the language, or if you borrow from a work whose copyrights are out of date. Conversely, it is possible to injure without plagiarism. Citing the work you are copying correctly does not nercate any liability in the event of an infringement. If you comment or criticize a copyrighted work, z.B writing a book review, fair dealing principles allow you to reproduce part of the work to achieve your goals. Some examples of comments and criticisms are: what are the considerations of applying the third fair use factor – the quantity and substantial of the share used in the copyrighted work as a whole? Assessing the impact on the market value of a copyrighted work often overlaps with the third factor, as the quantity and meaning of the part used often determines the value of the original.