Fair use doesn't have anything to do with the percentage of copyrighted content displayed. Otherwise 100 people could just individually display 1 minute of a Disney movie and that's obviously not going to happen.
For fair use to apply, you need to critique, parody, or otherwise transform the original material in a way that adds something. If you found 800 like minded people then you'd be facing 800 different lawsuits that you'd probably all lose.
That's not actually true. Fair use involves four factors:
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
(Although Thomas did ask in Google v Oracle if perhaps some more factors should be included, since the statute says the factors "shall include" and is therefore not an exhaustive list).
The percentage of copyrighted content is literally one of the four factors that are used to determine if the use is fair.
You make a fair point, it is merely a hack to evade a silly rule. Since facts are not copyrightable the "right fix" is to right an identical standard and make that free, then have people adhere to it rather than the ISO one.
That said, I'm pretty sure I could find 800 people who would critique the typography :-). Each usage would be a page that says, "Look at this random page from a standard (page <xxx> by the way), do those serifs really help anything? How is it even readable with the way they break the text in their paragraphs."
> You make a fair point, it is merely a hack to evade a silly rule. Since facts are not copyrightable the "right fix" is to right an identical standard and make that free, then have people adhere to it rather than the ISO one.
This is correct. Instead of cutting and pasting the ISO text, you can explain what the conclusions and rules are. In doing so, you will have the opportunity to both add value by explaining things better and subtract value by explaining things in a worse way. I think it will turn out to not be so easy to publish an "identical" standard in your own words, but it's worth the effort to disseminate free standards.
For fair use to apply, you need to critique, parody, or otherwise transform the original material in a way that adds something. If you found 800 like minded people then you'd be facing 800 different lawsuits that you'd probably all lose.