Reproducing such a large proportion of the work clearly does not constitute fair use for comment and criticism, particularly when the headline and first paragraph or two would have been sufficient (and would have been compliant with the Independent's own terms and conditions).
Furthermore, the rationale for fair use for comment and criticism is intended to mean works such as reviews, or even deconstructive blog posts, that actually do comment upon or criticise the work. Not website that simply copy and paste it and open it up to a comment facility that does nothing but replicate the one on the source site.
|