RSS client and copyright
<p>I'm developing some apps that rely on RSS feeds for it's contents, these apps never store the feed data, and always pull the fresh atom xml from the server. I limit the char count to 100 chars, so it won't display all the post content on the listing, and then redirect the user to a webview with the content owner's site open, so they receive their visit as they should.</p>

<p>My apps main sell points are the opportunity to favorite posts on the app, and the notification when new posts arrive. Other than that, it is a RSS reader, as many other, that is subscribed only to one feed.</p>

<p>The site owner asked me to remove the app as they didn't like it. I contested them saying that it is fair use, and refused to remove. I do have banners on it, but just on the listing screen and favorites screen, and the content is displayed bannerless.</p>

<p>What you people think? I'm in trouble? As I don't "republish" it, just merely display, nor I store their data, am I safer?</p>

<p>The <a href="https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/490948" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Copyright Law of Brazil</a> provides several exceptions to copyright. These are defined in Chapter IV of the law, in articles 46, 47, and 48. Of these, article 46 seems the most relevant to the question. One should note that none of these articles is at all equilivant to teh US concept of &quot;fair use&quot;.</p>
<p>Article 46 section III permits:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the quotation in books, newspapers, magazines or any other medium of communication of passages from a work for the purposes of study, criticism or debate, to the extent justified by the purpose, provided that the author is named and the source of the quotation is given;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>but the service described in the question is not so much quotation as indexing, ig I have understood it corectly, and I am not sure that 46 III covers it.</p>
<p>Article 46 section VIII permists:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the reproduction in any work of short extracts from existing works, regardless of their nature ...</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But again this does nor really fit te service described.</p>
<p>Articles 47 and 48 are not relevant to the actions described in the question.</p>
<p>In short, while I think these actions might well be permissible under fair use if a case is brought in a US court, they seem much more doubtful in an action under the law of Brazil. I have not been able to find relevant court decision under Brazilian law.</p>

copyright