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

  • Golan v. Holder
    Petitioners are orchestra conductors, musicians, publishers, and others who formerly enjoyed free access to literary and artistic works section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), 17 U.S.C. 104A, 109(a), removed from the public domain. Petitioners maintained that Congress, in passing section 514, exceeded its authority under the Constitution's Copyright and Patent Clause and violated the First Amendment rights of anyone who previously had access to such works. The Tenth Circuit ruled that section 514 was narrowly tailored to fit the important government aim of protecting U.S. copyright holders' interests abroad. In accord with the judgment of the Tenth Circuit, the Court concluded that section 514 did not transgress constitutional limitations on Congress' authority. The Court held that neither the text of the Copyright and Patent Clause, historical practice, or the Court's precedent excluded application of copyright protection to works in the public domain. The Court also held that nothing in the historical record, subsequent congressional practice, or the Court's jurisprudence warranted exceptional First Amendment solicitude for copyrighted works that were once in the public domain.
    Posted: January 18, 2012
  • UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC, et al.
    UMG filed suit against Veoh for direct and secondary copyright infringement where users of Veoh's service have in the past been able, without UMG's authorization, to download videos containing songs for which UMG owned a copyright. The district court granted summary judgment to Veoh after determining that it was protected by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. 512(c), "safe harbor" limiting service providers' liability for "infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider." The court affirmed the district court's determination on summary judgment that Veoh was entitled to section 512(c) safe harbor protection where Veoh met all the section 512(c) requirements. The district court also affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claims of secondary liability against the Investor Defendants. The court further affirmed the district court's determination that, in this case, attorney's fees could not be awarded under Rule 68. The court remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance whether Veoh was entitled to Rule 68 costs excluding attorney's fees.
    Posted: December 20, 2011
  • Dassault Systemes, SA v. Childress
    For about 15 years, defendant owned and operated a business that trained individuals to use the computer-aided design program CATIA, which was developed by plaintiff. Plaintiff owns the copyrights for CATIA software products and has registered the CATIA trademark with the USPTO. Plaintiff sought damages for copyright and trademark infringement, unfair competition, and Michigan Consumer Protection Act violations arising from allegedly unauthorized use of its name and software licenses to operate a for-profit training course. The district court ruled in favor of plaintiff. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's refusal to set aside default judgment against defendant, who was pro se, and likely confused rather than engaging in a strategy of delay and who raised a plausible defense. The court upheld the court's grant of plaintiff’s motion for leave to subpoena the FBI, which had seized defendant's computers; the information sought was not protected grand jury information.
    Posted: December 13, 2011
  • Steward Software Co. v. Kopcho
    The issue before the Supreme Court was whether a claim under Colorado law for civil theft of a copyrightable work required a trial court to instruct the jury on principles of federal copyright law. Petitioner Steward Software hired Respondent Richard Kopcho to develop and market a new software program. Steward never entered into a written agreement governing the ownership of the software with Holonyx, Inc. (one of Respondent's multiple corporate entities) or Respondent. By the time the software was ready for testing, the relationship between the parties had become strained. Steward refused to make further payments and under Respondent's direction, Holonyx locked Steward out of the software code and refused to turn it over. Holonyx then filed a copyright registration for the software with the U.S. Copyright Office, listing the software's author a new corporation Respondent controlled called Ruffdogs Software, Inc. Steward sued Respondent for breach of contract and civil theft. Before trial, the parties tendered proposed jury instructions; one of Steward's proposed instructions pertained to the ownership and registration of copyrightable works. The trial court determined that copyright law did not pertain to Steward's civil theft claim and rejected the tendered instruction. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed that ownership of the copyright in the code was irrelevant. The Court thus concluded the trial court correctly refused to instruct the jury on the principles of copyright law. The court reversed the appellate court and reinstated the trial court's opinion.
    Posted: December 13, 2011
  • Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp.
    Apple brought this action against Psystar for copyright infringement because Psystar was using Apple's software on Psystar computers. The district court held that Psystar was infringing Apple's federally registered copyrights in its operating software, Mac OS X, because Psystar was copying the software for use in Psystar's computers. Psystar subsequently appealed the district court's rejection of Psystar's copyright misuse defense, the district court's order enjoining Psystar's continuing infringement, and the district court's grant of Apple's motions to seal documents on grounds of maintaining confidentiality. The court held that Psystar's misuse defense failed because it was an attempt to apply the first sale doctrine to a valid licensing agreement. The court affirmed the district court's order enjoining Psystar's continuing infringement and Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. 1203(b)(1), violations and held that the district court properly applied the Supreme Court's four eBay Inc. v MercExchange, L.L.C. factors. The court held, however, that there was no adequate basis on the record to support the sealing of any Apple records on grounds of confidentiality and applied the presumption in favor of access, vacating the district court's sealing orders.
    Posted: September 28, 2011
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

  • Photo Attorney Blog Celebrates SEVEN YEARS!
    Today is the seventh anniversary of the Photo Attorney® blog! This blog is full of helpful information for the photographer's legal needs. With hundreds of blog entries on a variety of legal subjects that affect photographers, the best way to...
    by Carolyn E. Wright
    Posted: February 11, 2012
  • New look
    Depending on how you read the blog, you may have noticed that we have a new look. Since moving to WordPress I had been using the Atahualpa theme, and had been very happy with it. However, it is time to change things a bit, and I liked the look of the...
    by Andres
    Posted: February 11, 2012
  • Termination of Sound Recording Copyright Transfers
    Posted: February 11, 2012
  • Eps 227 - BTJunker
    It is Friday again and that means that it is time for another episode of the Copyright 2.0 Show. With Patrick on the road and unable to record last week, we have a lot of catching up to do as there's two week's worth of news to get through...
    by Jonathan Bailey
    Posted: February 10, 2012
  • Friday's Endnotes - 02/10/12
    Hit record - Salon.com Editor-in-chief Kerry Lauerman reports on lessons his company has learned. Aggregation, staff cuts, and emphasis on churning out content - doesn't work. Focusing on originality, quality over quantity, and publishing less...
    by Terry Hart
    Posted: February 10, 2012
More Blogs