Fairly Used Blog Subscribe to RSS

  • Attack on Open Access
    Even very popular government mandates have opponents, and the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Public Access Policy certainly has its critics. According to the agency, “The NIH Public Access Policy implements Division G, Title II, Section 218 of PL 110-161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008). The law states:” The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed...
    Posted: January 6, 2012
  • Behind the Scenes With Winston Tabb, Representing Libraries at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
    BEHIND THE SCENES WITH WINSTON TABB, REPRESENTING LIBRARIES AT THE WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION (WIPO)Mary Minow:  Good morning. I understand that international treaty discussions concerning libraries, archives and copyright are scheduled in Geneva in November 2011.  How did that come to be?   Winston Tabb:  Really, where we began was at the International Federation of Library Associations and Instititutions (IFLA) World Congress in Oslo in 2005. We didn't start with the idea...
    Posted: July 4, 2011
  • Copyright Case Summaries: Interview with Cicely Wilson and Courtney Minick of Justia
    Above: Cicely Wilson and Courtney Minick of Justia, holding Sheba and Belle, respectivelyCopyright Case Summaries: Interview with Cicely Wilson and Courtney Minick of JustiaThe Stanford Copyright and Fair Use site is pleased to announce a new feature to aid readers in keeping up and understanding copyright cases in a timely manner: copyright case summaries. To explain this new feature, Mary Minow talks to two editors of Justia, Cicely Wilson and Courtney Minick. Mary Minow: Tell us about the copyright case...
    Posted: April 22, 2011

What's New

Copyright Case Opinion Summaries AddThis Feed Button

  • Gaylord v. United States
    Gaylord created “The Column,” sculptures representing soldiers that are the centerpiece of the Korean War Veterans' Memorial on the National Mall. The Postal Service issued a stamp commemorating the 50th anniversary of the armistice, with a photograph of The Column, licensed from a photographer. USPS issued roughly 86.8 million of the stamps, sold retail goods with the image, and licensed the image to retailers, without seeking Gaylord's permission. In 2006, Gaylord sued under 28 U.S.C. 1498(b) for copyright infringement. The Federal Circuit held that Gaylord owned the copyright and that USPS was liable for infringement, but remanded for determination of damages. The Court of Federal Claims rejected a claim for a 10 percent royalty on about $30.2 million in revenue allegedly generated by the infringing use, as well as a claim for prejudgment interest, finding that neither 28 U.S.C. 1498(b), which waives sovereign immunity for copyright infringement, nor the copyright infringement statute, 17 U.S.C. 504, authorizes a royalty-based award for copyright infringement and that the proper measure of damages was the reasonable value of a license, between $1,500 and $5,000. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for determination of market value of the infringing use and award of prejudgment interest.
    Posted: May 14, 2012
  • Banco Popular de Puerto Rico v. Asociacion de Compositores
    In 2001 BPPR sought a declaratory judgment under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 after several music publishing companies contacted BPPR claiming that they owned and were owed royalties on music compositions that BPPR had produced and distributed in a series of Christmas concerts. BPPR deposited royalties due on the compositions with the district court and asked the court to declare to whom the royalties were due and distribute them accordingly. LAMCO and others countersued for copyright infringement. The district court denied motions for summary judgment. Several co-defendants settled their claims among themselves and with BPPR. The jury found BPPR liable for infringement of two compositions owned by LAMCO and ACEMLA, and awarded $42,941.00 in compensatory damages. The court found ACEMLA liable for violating a GVLI copyright and ordered $43,405.35 in damages. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. The district court properly found that the settlement agreement did not preclude future litigation of 12 undisputed LAMCO songs.
    Posted: May 11, 2012
  • United States v. Aleynikov
    Defendant, a computer programmer employed by Goldman Sachs & Co., appealed his conviction for stealing and transferring proprietary computer source code of Goldman's high frequency trading system in violation of the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA), 18 U.S.C. 2314, and the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA), 18 U.S.C. 1832. Defendant argued, inter alia, that his conduct did not constitute an offense under either statute because: (1) the source code was not a "stolen" "good" within the meaning of the NSPA, and (2) the source code was not "related" to a product "produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce" within the meaning of the EEA. The court agreed and concluded that defendant's conduct did not constitute an offense under either the NSPA or the EEA, and that the indictment was therefore legally insufficient. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court.
    Posted: April 13, 2012
  • L.A. Printex Industries, Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., et al
    L.A. Printex appealed the district court's summary judgment order in favor of defendants in L.A. Printex's copyright infringement action. The parties' dispute stemmed from a floral design created by an L.A. Printex designer that later appeared on shirts bearing defendants' trademark. The court held that L.A. Printex raised a genuine dispute of material fact on access and substantial similarity. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, vacated the award of attorneys' fees, and remanded for further proceedings.
    Posted: April 9, 2012
  • Viacom International, Inc., et al. v. Youtube, Inc., et al.; The Football Assoc. Premier League Ltd., et al. v. Tur, et al.
    Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to defendants on all claims of direct and secondary copyright infringement based on a finding that defendants were entitled to safe harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. 512. The court held that, although the district court correctly held that the section 512(c) safe harbor required knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity, the court vacated the order granting summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website. The court further held that the district court erred by interpreting the "right and ability to control" infringing activity to require "item-specific" knowledge. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's holding that three of the challenged YouTube software functions fell within the safe harbor for infringement that occurred "by reason of" storage at the direction of the user, and remanded for further fact-finding with respect to a fourth software function. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
    Posted: April 5, 2012
More Copyright Case Opinion Summaries

Dockets AddThis Feed Button

More Dockets

Regulations AddThis Feed Button

More Regulations

Copyright Office AddThis Feed Button

More Copyright Office

Copyright News AddThis Feed Button

More News

Copyright Blog Posts AddThis Feed Button

  • Contacts in New York Trumps Plaintiff's Choice of Forum
    SMP Logic Sys., LLC v. Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc., No. 11 C 5075, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2012) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.). Judge Der-Yeghiayan transferred this patent case involving pharmaceutical methods to the Eastern District of New York, for the...
    by R. David Donoghue
    Posted: May 21, 2012
  • tweet digest for week ended 2012-05-20
    us senators: we don't like how saverin avoids tax by following the rules. so we'll change the rules. http://t.co/6HX2LYYX # how zuckerberg cut out saverin. fascinating stuff. #whyillneverbeabillionaire http://t.co/ZqAXqGit # no related...
    by David Ma
    Posted: May 20, 2012
  • Letter from AmeriKat: Brought to you by the Letters 'A', 'W' and 'R' and the numbers 50 million and $100 million
    The AmeriKat and her niece kitten watching hours of the wonderful Sesame Street Over the past 18 months or so, the AmeriKat has delved back into the once familiar world of Sesame Street, hardback books with impossibly cuddly kittens in them and...
    Posted: May 20, 2012
  • Diary of a Copyright Infringement Lawsuit - 8 (Discovery; Initial Disclosures)
    After the parties have their Rule 26 meeting as described in the prior post, they may start the discovery process. The purpose of discovery is to learn about the other party's case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that...
    by Carolyn E. Wright
    Posted: May 20, 2012
  • Jonathan Bailey on This Week in Law
    Since there was no podcast this week following an unfortunate mishap with my Mac, I'd like to turn everyone's attention to a podcast I recorded last week when I appeared on This Week in Law. The show, entitled "Impunity Always Rides...
    by Jonathan Bailey
    Posted: May 18, 2012
More Blogs