List of cases referred in Copyright Law
Faculty: Prof. Shreya Matilal
Compiled by: Rohit Jain Sathya Narayan Murthy
Table of Contents
I. ORIGINALITY ........................................................................................................................................ 2
II. FIXATION .............................................................................................................................................. 2 III. IDEAS EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY ....................................................................................................... 2 IV. LITERARY & NON LITERARY WORK ................................................................................................. 3 V. SCENES A FAIRE .................................................................................................................................. 3 VI. FIRST SALE DOCTRINE ........................................................................................................................ 3 VII. AUTHORSHIP ........................................................................................................................................ 3 VIII.COPYRIGHTABILITY OF CHARACTERS .............................................................................................. 4 IX. Peer-Peer Sharing ............................................................................................................................... 4 X. SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY/ACCESS................................................................................................... 4 XI. CONTRIBUTORY AND VICARIOUS INFRINGEMENT ........................................................................... 4 XII. FAIR USE .............................................................................................................................................. 5 XIII.COMPUTER SOFTWARE PATENTS ...................................................................................................... 5 XIV.BRIEF SUMMARY OF CASES .............................................................................................................. 6
1. MAC MILLAN V. K&J COOPER 2. GOVINDAN V. GOPALKRISHNA KONE 3. C. CUNNIAH & CO. V. BALRAJ & CO. 4. AGGARWALA PUBLISHING HOUSE KHURJA V. BOARD OF HIGH SCHOOL AND INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION, U.P 5. NAG BOOK HOUSE V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, 6. EASTERN BOOK COMPANY V. D.B. MODAK & ANR 7. SHELDON V. METRO-GOLDWYN PICTURES CORP 8. FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. V. RURAL TELEPHONE SERVICE CO., INC. 9. BURROW-GILES LITHOGRAPHIC CO. V. SARONY 10. BLEISTEIN V. DONALDSON LITHOGRAPHING CO. 11. THE BRIDGEMAN ART LIBRARY, LTD. V. COREL CORP. 12. DONOGHUE V. ALLIED NEWSPAPERS, LIMITED 13. CCH CANADIAN LTD. V. LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA 14. R.G. ANAND V DELUXE FILMS AND ORS 15. UNIVERSITY OF LONDON PRESS LTD V. UNIVERSITY TUTORIAL PRESS LTD 16. C. CUNNIAH AND CO. V. BALRAJ AND CO.
17. WILLIAMS ELECTRONICS, INC. V. ARCTIC INTERNATIONAL, INC. 18. MAI SYSTEMS CORP. V. PEAK COMPUTER, INC.
IDEAS EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY
19. NICHOLS V. UNIVERSAL PICTURES CORPORATION 20. R G ANAND V. DELUX FILMS AND OTHERS 21. DONOGHUE V. ALLIED NEWSPAPERS LIMITED 22. BAKER V. SELDEN 23. INTERNATIONAL NEW SERVICE V. ASSOCIATED PRESS
ORIENT LONGMAN LTD 42. INC. 545 U. 26.24. V. LEE 41.SKYY SPIRITS INC 27. QUANTA COMPUTER V. HOEHLING V. AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION V. 464 U.
39. INC. V.. LTD. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS. MALINI MALLYA
V. HUSTLER MAGAZINE.A. MUSIC BROADCAST PVT LTD.
VI. 913 (2005) 33. THOMAS WALKER V. NAJMA HEPTULLA V. LTD. LTD. AALMUHAMMED V. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. DOUGLASS V.
SCENES A FAIRE
VII. INC. V. TRINITY THEATRE. ERICKSON V.
FIRST SALE DOCTRINE
35. APPLE COMPUTER. V. UNIVERSAL STUDIOS 30. 417 (1984) ALSO KNOWN AS THE "BETAMAX CASE" 36.G. L. SUPER CASSETTE INDUSTRIES LTD. ELECTRONICS (PATENT EXHAUSTION DOCTRINE) 37.
LITERARY & NON LITERARY WORK
28.. INDIAN PERFORMING SOCIETY.S. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER V. PHONOGRAPHIC PERFORMANCE LTD. SANTOSH V. 34. 40. OF AMERICA V. MICROSOFT CORPORATION 31.
IV. ZEE TELEFILMS V. JOSHUA ETS-HOKIN.
. INC. WARNER BROTHERS (DELHI HIGH COURT) 38. MUSIC BROADCAST PVT.S.TIME LIFE FILMS.V. INC. MUSIC BROADCAST PVT. ACADEMY OF GENERAL EDUCATION V. V. INC. SONY CORP. MGM STUDIOS. A. 32. GROKSTER. DELTA DENTAL PLANS ASSOCIATION 25. SUNDIAL CORP.
INC.T. Green Co 4
. V. ARNSTEIN V. SONY CORP. MGM STUDIOS V.
50. TOM J. V. FRYE V YMCA CAMP KITAKI 58. 60. SAGARIKA MUSIC CASE 49. Shapiro . 61. UNIVERSAL PICTURES CORP. V. SAHARA ENTERTAINMENT 46. ALTAI. V. ZEE TELEFILMS V. 57. INC. A&M RECORDS V. NETCOM ON-LINE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES. ZEE TELEFILMS V. MALAYALA MANORAMA COMPANY 44. INC.
62. THREE BOYS MUSIC CORP.
CONTRIBUTORY AND VICARIOUS INFRINGEMENT
59. V. MCDONALD'S CORP. INC. NAPSTER
X. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. BARBARA TAYLOR BRADFORD V.L. (ABSTRACTION-FILTRATIONCOMPARISION TEST) 54.VIII. V. SID & MARTY KROFFT TELEVISION PRODUCTIONS. METRO-GOLDWYN-MAYER V. NICHOLS V.
COPYRIGHTABILITY OF CHARACTERS
43. BARBARA TAYLOR BRADFORD V. H. GROKSTER 48. CAREY
XI. Bernstein And Co. THOMAS ALIAS TOMS AND ORS. SAHARA ENTERTAINMENT 52. INC. SUNDIAL COMMUNICATIONS
IX. RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER V. CHERRY AUCTION. FONOVISA INC. V. 45. 55. V. MICHAEL BOLTON 51. COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INT'L. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS. PORTER 56. SWIRSKY V. SUNDIAL COMMUNICATIONS 53. INC.
65. PARKER V. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC. CAMPBELL V. INC. 70. SIGNATURE FINANCIAL GROUP 79. GOTTSCHALK V. Mgm Studios Inc. NATION ENTERPRISES 67. ACCOLADE. EXCEL
. V. GERSHWIN PUBLISHING CORPORATION V. HARPER & ROW. STATE STREET BANK V.
COMPUTER SOFTWARE PATENTS
74. SEGA ENTERPRISES LTD. CIVIC CHANDRAN V. PUBLISHERS V. SANTOSH
XIII. AMMINI AMMA 73. INC. FOLSOM V MARSH 71. SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT. Grokster
XII. RE ALAPPAT 77. WARNER BROTHER V. FLOOK 76. CONNECTIX CORP. INC. PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORP. 69. BENSON 75. DIAMOND V. ATND V. 66. V. 68. COLUMBIA ARTISTS MANAGEMENT 64. LEIBOVITZ V. HUBBARD AND ANOTHER V VOSPER AND ANOTHER 72. V.63.
maker.who is an author? In Burrow-Giles.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF CASES
CASE : Feist Publications. are not themselves subject to copyright protection. consisting of white pages and yellow pages.\ Summary: The most fundamental axiom of copyright law is that “no author may copyright his ideas or the facts he narrates. Rural Telephone Service Co. What happened? This case requires us to clarify the extent of copyright protection available to telephone directory white pages.” Rural wisely concedes this point.” in a constitutional sense.XIV.” The Court defined “author. Rural publishes a typical telephone directory. noting in its brief that “facts and discoveries. to mean “he to whom anything owes its origin. originator. so long as the competing work does not feature the same selection and arrangement. a work must be original to the author. accordingly. To this end. A subsequent compiler remains free to use the facts contained in another's publication to aid in preparing a competing work. even a directory that contains absolutely no protectible written expression. of course. the Court distilled the same requirement from the Constitution's use of the word “authors. Rural sued for copyright infringement in the District Court for the District of Kansas taking the position that Feist. copyright
. To qualify for copyright protection. Originality remains the sine qua non of copyright.” Thus.” The key to resolving the tension lies in understanding why facts are not copyrightable. hence this appeal.. in compiling its own directory. 499 U. Inc. copyright protection may extend only to those components of a work that are original to the author. The sine qua non of copyright is originality. v.S. The mere fact that a work is copyrighted does not mean that every element of the work may be protected. meets the constitutional minimum for copyright protection if it features an original selection or arrangement. only facts. 340 (1991). Some protection may be given but This protection is subject to an important limitation. could not use the information contained in Rural's white pages. Inc. Rural Telephone Service Company is a certified public utility that provides telephone service to several communities in northwest Kansas.
and by deed purported to assign it. and compilations. Sweat of the brown doctrine not applicable here because the doctrine had numerous flaws. CASE: University of London Press Ltd v v. charts. Court said that can Rural claim originality in its coordination and arrangement of facts.assures authors the right to their original expression. within the meaning of this Act. but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. whether these examination papers are. As applied to a factual compilation. to the plaintiff company. the most glaring being that it extended copyright protection in a compilation beyond selection and arrangement-the compiler's original contributions-to the facts themselves. assuming the absence of original written expression.‟The University agreed with the plaintiff company to assign the copyright.the court stated:“In my view the words “literary work” cover work which is expressed in print or
.. only the compiler's selection and arrangement may be protected. with criticisms on the papers and answers to questions. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art. therefore. This principle. After the examination the defendant company issued a publication containing a number of the examination papers (including three which had been set by two examiners who were co-plaintiffs).” It may be difficult to define “literary work” as used in this Act. applies to all works of authorship. The act provides for copyright in “every original literary dramatic musical and artistic work. plans. known as the idea/expression or fact/expression dichotomy. the raw facts may be copied at will. original literary works It was indicated“„Literary work' includes maps. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. But there is nothing remotely creative about arranging names alphabetically in a white pages directory . University Tutorial Press Ltd Examiners were appointed for a matriculation examination of the University of London„condition of appointment being that any copyright in the examination papers should belong to the University. The white pages do nothing more than list Rural's subscribers in alphabetical order. but it seems to be plain that it is not confined to “literary work” in the sense in which that phrase is applied. tables.Hence not copyrightable.” subject to certain conditions which for this purpose are immaterial. and the question is.
Author is the first owner of the copyright. The originality which is required relates to the expression of the thought. and that the existence of direct control by the employer. or that he prepared these papers under a contract of service. in my opinion. the degree of independence on the part of the person who renders services.The examiners were no doubt employed by the University of London.that it should originate from the author.Exception: But the act also says that the examiners must have been “under a contract of service or apprenticeship”. Papers set by examiners are. A person who is employed by a company at a fixed annual salary to supply weekly articles for a periodical is not a servant. are all matters to be considered in determining whether there is a contract of service.Contract of service was not the same thing as a contract for service.” The author shall be the
. and imports that there exists in the person serving an obligation to obey the orders of the person served. to frame a satisfactory definition for them. if not impossible. and.writing. and it has been found difficult. Contract of service involves the existence of a servant.” The word “original” does not in this connection mean that the work must be the expression of original or inventive thought.The meaning of the words “contract of service” has been considered on several occasions. and the papers were prepared by them in the course of their employment. the place where the service is rendered. Copyright Acts are not concerned with the originality of ideas. The word “literary” seems to be used in a sense somewhat similar to the use of the word “literature” in political or electioneering literature and refers to written or printed matter. But the Act does not require that the expression must be in an original or novel form. irrespective of the question whether the quality or style is high.” with the expression of thought in print or writing. in the case of “literary work. subject only to the exceptions contained in the Act. “In my judgment it is impossible to say that the examiner in such circumstances can be appropriately described as the servant of the University. but that the work must not be copied from another work . A servant is a person who is subject to the commands of his master as to the manner in which he shall do his work. but with the expression of thought. “literary work” within the meaning of the present Act.
the action fails in respect of the copyright in the papers which were composed by them. but it has in the course of the action joined the authors as co-plaintiffs. Jackson(authors). the defendants published the “London Matriculation Directory. as parties. It could not be contended that the mere republication of a copyright work was a “fair dealing” because it was intended for purposes of private study. but the University was equitably entitled to it subject to the restrictions contained in the proviso to s. 5. which is now equitably entitled to the copyright. geometry. 2 . Jackson(authors and co-plaintiff). in the absence of the other examiners. The only exceptions from the rule that the author is the first owner are the cases mentioned in which do not cover the present case. sub-s. 1916. if an author produced a book of questions for the use of students. The examiner was the first owner. In order to sue for infringement of the copyright. signed by the owner or his agent. The University assigned its rights to the plaintiff company. It has not obtained an assignment. who are the legal owners of the copyright. Recognizing this demand. Teachers in general are “very glad to get copies of old questions for use in tuition” It is also important that students should get the questions for purposes of “instruction”. set by Professor Lodge and Mr. subject to the obligation under the contract of employment to assign it to the University or as it may direct. Criticism appears to be intended for the guidance of future examiners rather . The plaintiffs can therefore sue for infringement of the copyright in the papers prepared by Professor Lodge and Mr.” which contains sixteen of the matriculation papers for January. nor. With the same object in view. including the papers on arithmetic and algebra. and he has not assigned the copyright in writing signed by him or his agent.first owner of the copyright. the plaintiff company published the matriculation papers. and more advanced mathematics. and that every assignment of a copyright must be in writing. could another person with impunity republish the book with the answers to the questions
. the plaintiff company must either obtain a proper assignment of the copyright or join the examiners. but. The copyright therefore remains in the examiners.The copyright was vested in the examiners.
besides recurring expenditure on both the management of human resources and infrastructural maintenance. standardization or formatting of the text.B
In this case Appellant No.Eastern
v. 1957 and thus the
. After record of proceedings procured. 1956. SCC was a law report which carried case reports comprising of the appellants' version or presentation of those judgments and orders of' the Supreme Court after putting various inputs in the raw text and it constituted an 'original literary work' of the appellants in which copyright subsisted under Section 13 of the Copyright Act. is a company incorporated and existing under the Companies Act. The appellant publishes all reportable judgments along with non-reportable judgments of the Supreme Court of India.Eastern Book Company is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of publishing law books. computers and for maintaining extensive library. The said appellants are involved in the printing and publishing of various books relating to the field of law. As per the appellants. paragraph numbering. 1 .EBC Publishing Pvt. verification and by putting other inputs The headnotes and putting the various inputs in the raw text of the judgments and orders received from the Supreme Court Registry require considerable amount of skill. equipment. are copy-edited by a team of assistant staff and various inputs are put in the judgments and orders to make them user friendly by making an addition of cross-references. labour and expertise and for the said work a substantial amount of capital expenditure on the infrastructure. 1 . which is the raw source. Appellant No. One of the well-known publications of appellant No. The name "Supreme Court Cases" has been coined by the appellants and they have been using the same continuously. 2 . is made by the plaintiff-appellants. Ltd.Eastern Book Company is the law report "Supreme Court Cases" (hereinafter called "SCC"). exclusively and extensively in relation to the law reports published by them.
D. such as office.
the respondents had copied the appellants' sequencing. and such acts of the defendant-respondents constitute infringement of the plaintiff-appellants' exclusive right to the same. was an infringement of the copyright in SCC within the meaning of . Sub-clause (iv) of Clause (q) of Section 52(1) excludes the reproduction or publication of any judgment or order of a Court.
. labor and capital put in the inputs of the copy-edited judgments and the original or innovative thoughts for the creativity are completely excluded. the Tribunal or ocher judicial authority from copyright. footnote numbers. Ltd. the copy-editing paragraph numbers. selection and arrangement of the cases coupled with the entire text of copy-edited judgments as published in the plaintiff-appellants' law report SCC. along with and including the style and formatting. (in Civil Appeal No. That being the position. the copyedited judgments would not satisfy the copyright merely by establishing amount of skill. As per the appellants. it is expressly provided that certain acts enumerated therein shall not constitute an infringement of copyright. (in Civil. cross-references. Appeal No. The judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court would be in the public domain and its reproduction or publication would not infringe the copyright. By virtue of Section 52(1) of the Act. unless the reproduction or publication of such judgment or order is prohibited by the Court. The defendant-respondent No.appellants alone had the exclusive right to make printed as well as electronic copies of the same under Section 14 of the Act. 2 Spectrum Business Support Ltd. 6472/2004) has brought out a software called "Grand Juriy" published on CD-ROMs and the defendant-respondent No.. 2 Regent Data Tech Pvt. all the modules in the defendant-respondents' software packages had been lifted verbatim from the appellants' work. It was held in the case that the reports in the Supreme Court Cases (SCC) of the judgments of the Supreme Court is a derivative work in public domain. Any scanning or copying or reproduction done of or from the reports or pages or paragraphs or portions of any volume of SCC by any other person. 6905/2004) brought out software package called "The Laws" published on CD-ROMS. etc. Tribunal or other judicial authority.
editorial notes. as the conversations went on. and he then proceeded to write up the articles required. etc. of the various matters and material with which the plaintiff supplied him. the appeals were partly allowed. The copyright work which comes into being should be original in the sense that by virtue of selection. For the reasons stated above. if any. Following that there were various interviews between the plaintiff and Felstead. In 1936 Felstead (the reporter hired by the defendant company) was anxious to make some use of the articles that had appeared in the News of the World. Copyrighted material is that what is created by the author by his own skill. ALLIED NEWSPAPERS. A contact was signed thus. the above-mentioned additional relief to the appellants was also granted. 894. Case : DONOGHUE v.
. labor and investment of capital. He then endeavored to persuade the plaintiff to consent to the publication of the articles in “Guide and Ideas”.] Summary: In 1931 the paper “News of the World” owned by the defendant company. co-ordination or arrangement of pre-existing data contained in the work. a work somewhat different in character is produced by the author. D. 'partly dissenting'. and that the defendant-respondents shall also not copy the footnotes and editorial notes appearing in the journal of the plaintiff-appellants. they should not in any way copy the head notes of the plaintiff-appellants. at which Felstead made notes. on the basis of reported judgments in SCC. It was further directed that the defendant-respondents shall not use the paragraphs made by the appellants in their copy-edited version for internal references and their editor's judgment regarding the opinions expressed by the Judges by using phrases like concurring'. LIMITED [1936. maybe it is a derivative work which gives a flavor of creativity.Copyright has nothing to do with originality or literary merit. The High Court did grant interim relief to the plaintiff-appellants by directing that though the respondent-defendants shall be entitled to sell their CD-ROMS with the text of the judgments of the Supreme Court along with their own head notes. were desirous of publishing a series of articles dealing with the racing career of the plaintiff. The judgment of the High Court was modified to the extent that in addition to the interim relief already granted by the High Court.
through his solicitors. then there is no such thing as copyright at all. that in which ALLIED copyright exists is the particular form of language by which . in which he asked for damages for infringement of copyright and an injunction to restrain the defendants from printing. but if he communicates that idea to an author or an artist or a playwright. By Steve Donohue. Justice farwell: “that there is no copyright in an idea. or for a picture. a play.e chromolithographs) advertising a circus. The plaintiff then commenced this action. Donaldson Lithographing Co. the production which is the result of the communication of the idea to the author or the artist or the playwright is the copyright of the person who has clothed the idea in form. but instead of going back to Courier. whether by means of a picture. Case : Bleistein v. 188 U. Felstead and not the language of the plaintiff. produced a number of posters (i. 1936. Plaintiff failed to show that he was the owner or part owner of the copyright in these articles. The Trial Court found for Donaldson. under the heading “My Racing Secrets. is nothing more than an idea. or for a play. or in ideas. or a book. selling or otherwise circulating the articles.The first article appeared in Guide and Ideas on May 23. complained. Later. and the further publication of the articles was stopped. and one which appears to him to be original. Bleistein appealed. or any form of expression such as a picture.. the circus needed more prints made. however original.
. A person may have a brilliant idea for a story. Donaldson. the information which is to be conveyed is conveyed. Hence case was dismissed. 239 (1903) Courier Lithographing (represented by Bleistein). who copied the posters. and is not put into any form of words. they went to a cheaper competitor." The plaintiff. the particular form of language in which those adventures or stories were conveyed to the public was the language of Mr. Donaldson argued that copyright protection should only be extended to 'fine arts' not to advertising or other 'commercial arts'. and the owner of the idea has no rights in that product” The court said that there can be no copyrightability to facts.S. publishing. If the idea. Bleistein sued for copyright infringement.
other artists are "free to copy the original. The Court noted that when making a reproduction of something from real life (like a person or a landscape). Therefore they were not a 'creation' of the illustrator."” That's now known as the Bleistein Nondiscrimination Principle.The Trial Court found that posters were not within the protection of copyright law because they were illustrations of actual people (the circus performers). not from sight of a performance.” Furthermore the court stated that” These chromolithographs are "pictorial illustrations.
. The opposite proposition would mean that a portrait by Velasquez or Whistler was common property because others might try their hand on the same face. Personality always contains something unique. The Appellate Court affirmed." The Court found that illustrations used for commercial purposes are still copyrightable. The copy is the personal reaction of an individual upon nature. They are not free to copy the copy. It expresses its singularity even in handwriting. Bleistein appealed. In finality the e judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals was reversed. that fact would not deprive them of protection. The US Supreme Court found that illustrators are creators. Others are free to copy the original. The US Supreme Court reversed. The court stated that” They seem from the testimony to have been composed from hints or description. which is one man's alone." The Court issued a warning that judges were not to evaluate the artist or aesthetic merit of art when determining whether or not is should be covered by copyright law. That something he may copyright unless there is a restriction in the words of the act. but they are not free to copy the copy. "A picture is nonetheless a picture. But even if they had been drawn from the life. The Court found that the posters were not within the protection of copyright law because they were commercial advertisements. and a very modest grade of art has in it something irreducible. even when they are drawing images of real people.
The Appellate Court found that a wide variety of things are subject to copyright. so far as the photograph is a representation of original intellectual conceptions. not just books. Stat.. Sarony 11 U. is to give notice of the copyright to the public. of intellectual production. It is within the constitutional power of Congress to confer upon the author. v.S. Burrow-Giles argued that the photograph could not be copyrighted because it was "not a writing nor the production of an author. §102(a) requires that a work be original. He merely reproduced the exact features of a natural object (namely Oscar Wilde).Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co."
.S. and when the copyright is disputed. and of thought and conception on the part of the author. that notice of a copyright in a photograph shall be given by inscribing upon some visible portion of it the words Copyright. it is important to establish those facts. The Trial Court found for Sarony. so far as they are representative of original intellectual conceptions of the author. designer. The object of the requirement in the copyright act. Whether a photograph is a mere mechanical reproduction or an original work of art is a question to be determined by proof of the facts of originality.
Burrow-Giles argued that Sarony didn't produce anything. The Appellate Court affirmed. Sarony sued Burrow-Giles for copyright infringement. inventor. Burrow-Giles appealed.C. the date. § 4952." 17 U. or proprietor of a photograph the rights conferred by Rev. and the name of the proprietor. 53 (1884) Sarony took a photograph of Oscar Wilde. and a notice which gives his surname and the initial letter of his given name is sufficient inscription of the name.. Congress can authorize copyright in all forms of writing "by which the ideas of the mind of the author are given visible expression. Burrow-Giles made copies of the photo.
The Court found that Sarony gave his "mental conception" form by posing Oscar Wilde, choosing the lighting, wardrobe, etc. All of that made the photograph the author's original work of art, even though the photograph was mechanically produced. the judgment against lithographic company in photographer's action for infringement of a copyright in a photograph was affirmed, because the copyright bearing plaintiff's last name and first letter of his Christian name was sufficient notice, and authorship rights could be conferred on a photograph maker such as plaintiff by Congress, under the Constitution. The Bridgeman Art Library, Ltd. v. Corel Corp. 36 F. Supp.2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) Bridgeman marketed reproductions of art owned by some museums. They sold digital images of the art on CD. The art was in the public domain and not protected by copyright. Corel started selling their own CDs of famous art, containing some of Bridgeman's digital images. Bridgeman sued for copyright infringement. Corel argued that the paintings in question were public domain, and Bridgeman couldn't get a copyright on an exact digital copy of a public domain painting. Bridgeman pointed to Alfred Bell & Co. v. Catalda Fine Arts, Inc. (191 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1951)), which held that reproductions of public domain images can be awarded copyright protection. The Trial Court found for Corel. The Trial Court found that a photograph could be denied copyright for a lack of originality, if it amount to nothing more than "slavish copying." the court stated that” n this case, plaintiff by its own admission has labored to create "slavish copies" of public domain works of art. While it may be assumed that this required both skill and effort, there was no spark of originality -indeed, the point of the exercise was to reproduce the underlying works with absolute fidelity. Copyright is not available in these circumstances.” Bridgeman admitted that they were attempting to make the digital images as identical to the original paintings as possible.
reproduction original, and just producing a copy in a different medium did not constitute a distinguishable variation. In it‟s judgement the court stated that “Plaintiff's motion for reargument and reconsideration of this Court's order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted. Nevertheless, on reargument and reconsideration, defendant Corel Corporation's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.” Case : CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada (2002), 2002 FCA 187, 1. What happened?
Since 1954 the Law Society, a statutory, non-profit organization, offered request-based photocopying services to students, members, the judiciary, and authorized researchers at their Great Library of the law books .It also allowed visitors to use photocopiers. Above each photocopier, the defendant posted a notice stating that certain types of copying might infringe copyright law and disclaiming liability by the defendant for infringing copies made by library patrons. A group of publishers commenced a copyright infringement action against the Law Society for photocopying such published material – copyright infringement of 11 specific works. .
Summary: The first issue held by the court was subsistence of copyright. Chief Justice Mc Lachlin takes the middle road between the approaches of “minimal degree of creativity" and "sweat of the brow“test. in order for a work to be “original” it must be the product of an author‟s exercise of “skill and judgment”. Skill was defined as the use of one‟s knowledge, developed aptitude or practiced ability in producing a work. Judgement is the use of one‟s capacity for discernment or ability to form an opinion by comparing different possible options in producing a work. The
exercise of skill and judgment required to produce the work must not be so trivial that it could be characterized as a purely mechanical exercise. Importantly, it is required that the work must be more than a mere copy of another work. However, creativity is not required to make a work 'original'. The judge concluded that all eleven works were protected by copyright ,the creation of headnotes, summaries, and topical indices involves sufficient exercise of skill and judgment so as to render them "original" works. However, the judgments themselves are not copyrightable, nor are the typographical corrections done by the editors. • The second issue was the issue of authorization. CJ McLachlin dismissed this argument by stating that providing access to a machine that could be used to infringe copyright does not suggest sufficient "authorization" to violate copyright. Also noted - the Law Society did not have direct control of its patrons, as with a master-servant relationship. A library does not induce copyright infringement by providing self-service photocopiers for use by its patrons. When claiming "fair dealing" the claimant must show that 1. the dealing was for the purpose of either research or private study and that 2. it was fair. • Interpretation of "research“must be given a large and liberal interpretation in order to ensure that users' rights are not unduly constrained. Fair dealing – 6 factors to determine fairness: purpose of the dealing: character , amount ,Alternatives ,The nature of the work, The effect of the dealing on the work. The judge concluded: Given the restrictions put in place by the Law Society for copying the materials, the library was acting fairly. Lawyers photocopying law books for use that goes beyond academic use (ie. for profit) is fair dealing. Since library's dealings were fair, McLachlin did not need to rule on this issue. • Regardless, she determined that the Great Library qualified for the library exemption. Since the Great Library was found not to have infringed on copyrighted material, no Injunctive relief was made available to the publishers.
Anand v Deluxe Films and Ors. In other words.G. themes. The play was allegedly copied and made into a film called “New Delhi”. One of the surest and the safest test to determine whether or not there has been a violation of copyright is to see if the reader. If the defendant's work is nothing but a literal imitation of the copyrighted work with some variations here and there it would amount to violation of the copyright. It is manifest that unlike a stage play a film has a much broader prospective. plots or historical or legendary facts and violation of the copyright in such cases is confined to the form. subject matter. spectator or the viewer after having read or seen both the works is clearly of the opinion and gets an unmistakable impression that the subsequent work appears to be a copy of the original. The main theme of the play is provincialism and the prejudice of persons belonging to one State against persons belonging to other States. Where however the question is of the violation of the copyright of stage play by a film producer or a Director the task of the plaintiff becomes more difficult to prove piracy. Judgement: There can be no copyright in an idea. In such a case the courts should determine whether or not the similarities are on fundamental or substantial aspects of the mode of expression adopted in the copyrighted work. AIR1978SC1613 Summary: Plaintiff‟s suit for damages against the defendants on the ground that they had violated the copyrighted work of the plaintiff which was a drama called 'Hum Hindustani'. Where the theme is the same but is presented and treated differently so that the subsequent work becomes a completely new work. no question of violation of copyright arises.Case: R. in order to be actionable the copy must be a substantial and material one which at once leads to the conclusion that the defendant is guilty of an act of piracy. Where the same idea is being developed in a different manner. similarities are bound to occur. manner and arrangement and expression of the idea by the author of the copyright work. As a violation of copyright amounts to an act of piracy it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence after applying the various tests laid down by the case law discussed above. a wider field and a bigger background
. Where however apart from the similarities appearing in the two works there are also material and broad dissimilarities which negative the intention to copy the original and the coincidences appearing in the two works are clearly incidental no infringement of the copyright comes into existence. it is manifest that the source being common. The play is about Madrasi boy and Punjabi girl who secretly marries against the wish of their parents.
685 F. The appeal is therefore dismissed without any order as to costs. v.where the defendants can by introducing a variety of incidents give a colour and complexion different from the manner in which the copyrighted work has expressed the idea.2d 870 (3d Cir. the player controls the action and is in a sense a 'coauthor' of what appears on the screen. Case: Williams Electronics. 17 U. Arctic began producing a knock-off version called "Defense Command" that used pretty much the exact same images and program. In addition. The Appellate Court affirmed. Arctic argued that since the images move around on a screen and disappear.
. Arctic appealed. the images are redrawn over again. Inc. §102(a) requires that a work must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression.. 1982) Williams made a video game called "Defender" that featured images of spaceships and aliens .C. Each time the game is played. Arctic argued that Williams could not have a copyright on the material because it was not in a fixed medium. Defendant‟s argument in this regard is misdirected.S. The Court held that after careful consideration of the essential features of the film it is clear that the plaintiff has not proved by clear and cogent evidence that the defendants committed colourable imitation of the play and defendants have committed no violation of the copyright of the plaintiff.. Inc. if it sought. they don't meet the definition of 'fixed'. The issue in this case is not whether plaintiff.The computer program was hard-wired into a 'ROM' chip inside of the cabinet. The Trial Court found for Williams.Williams sued Arctic for copyright infringement. could protect the ROM itself under the copyright laws.reproduced or otherwise communicated." Defendant arctic argued that there can be no copyright protection for the ROMs because they are utilitarian objects or machine parts. The Appellate Court found that the term fixed should be read to mean "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be.
Supp. The Copyright Act defines "copies" as: material objects.MAI sued Peak for copyright infringement. and from which the work can be perceived. (547 F. Peak appealed Peak argued that they were not making a copy by running the software. Peak stole some of MAI's maintenance contracts. because a substantial portion of the images are the same. or otherwise communicated. but that license did not allow third parties like Peak to make copies. reproduced. That entailed making a copy of the program from the hard drive onto the computer's RAM. the Court found that the audiovisual work was permanently embodied in the computer code on the ROM. The Trial Court found for MAI. 999 (1982)). Peak Computer. MAI argued that in order to perform maintenance. regardless of how the game is played. Case : MAI Systems Corp. 991 F. Arctic International Inc. After the software was installed on a customer's computers they often maintained the customers' computer systems for an additional cost. by or under the authority of the author. 1993) MAI made computer software. MAI argued that they had sold a license to the users to make copies. See Midway Manufacturing Co.2d 511 (9th Cir. The Court found that the player's participation in the game did not withdraw the work from copyright eligibility. A few MAI employees defected to a competitor named Peak.In addition. other than phonorecords. is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit
. because the image of the program on the RAM was temporary and therefore not fixed. v. either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. you had to run the program. Peak vigorously disputed the district court's conclusion that a "copying" occurred under the Copyright Act. The Copyright Act then explained: A work is "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord. Inc. v. in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed.
. Upon learning of Universal's plans to release the film. The Appellate Court looked to the statutory definition of the word 'copy' in 17 U. The court stated that:” it is generally accepted that the loading of software into a computer constitutes the creation of a copy under the Copyright Act. 847 F. What happened? Appellant A.2d 255.g. 1988) ("the act of loading a program from a medium of storage into a computer's memory creates a copy of the program" The district court's grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part. 1980).it to be perceived. 260 (5th Cir.A. and it was distributed throughout the nation. a fiction writer named Mooney wrote a novel about the disaster that featured a plot and characters similar to Hoehling's research. Later. Vault Corp. Summary:
. Judge Smith declined to issue an order restraining release of the film in December. See e. 618 F. §101 and found that loading the software onto the RAM met the definition. A.. reproduced.S.C. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgement because of the following evidences presented. Hoehling published Who Destroyed the Hindenburg? He published this book (based on several other sources) that blamed the disaster on the work of a saboteur. or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. Hoehling v.2d 972 (2d Cir. Hoehling instituted this action against Universal for copyright infringement and common law unfair competition in the district court for the District of Columbia in October 1975. v. CASE : A. Quaid Software Ltd. It was later turned into a movie. Universal City Studios. Inc." Therefore it was fixed for purposes of §102(a). or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration. The Court found that the image on the RAM was "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived. reproduced.
whether the exclusive property in a system of book-keeping can be claimed.' the object of which was to exhibit and explain a peculiar system of bookkeeping. Case : Baker v. the court held that factual information is in the public domain because in this case the vast majority of the remainder deals with alleged copying of historical facts. 99 (1879) What happened? Charles Selden. be it documented fact or explanatory hypothesis. the court held that scenes a faire are not copyrightable as a matter of law. however. embracing no more than the author's original expression of particular facts and theories already in the public domain” The judgment of the district court was affirmed. Selden 101 U. entitled 'Selden's Condensed Ledger.S. the testator of the complainant in this case. he must demonstrate that defendants "copied" his work and that they "improperly appropriated" his "expression. The main question is.It is undisputed that Hoehling has a valid copyright in his book. To prove infringement. under the law or copyright. the scope of copyright in historical accounts is narrow indeed. by means of a book in which that system is explained?
. The court held that because it is virtually impossible to write about a particular historical era or fictional theme without employing certain "stock" or standard literary devices. The rationale for this doctrine is that the cause of knowledge is best served when history is the common property of all. Mooney has used a lot of stock characters as a part of his film and hence this is uncopyrightable. in the year 1859 took the requisite steps for obtaining the copyright of a book. Summary: The evidence of the complainant is principally directed to the object of showing that Baker uses the same system as that which is explained and illustrated in Selden's books. and each generation remains free to draw upon the discoveries and insights of the past.teh court regarding us eof historical facts stated that :” the protection afforded the copyright holder has never extended to history. or Book-
keeping Simplified. Accordingly.
it was not a violation of Selden's copyright. but he could probably patent it now under 35 U. Baker didn't copy any of the text from Selden's book. granting a copyright on that expression would effectively lock up anybody from using the idea. The US Supreme Court found that a copyright did not give an author the right to prevent others from using the same method.e "useful arts").S.e merger doctrine)The concept of merger is that if an idea can only be expressed in one way or a few ways. The Trial Court found that Baker's books were "in large and material part identical with and infringements of the books of Selden system. Copyrights can only be used to protect expressions. The Trial Court found for Selden. Selden's method would probably not have been eligible for patent protection.C. The Court found that what Selden was really trying to protect was a patent on his method. sell." At the time. since you can't copyright ideas. §102(b)
. Baker appealed. "The copyright of a book on bookkeeping cannot secure the exclusive right to make." The US Supreme Court reversed. and use account books prepared upon the plan set forth in such a book. you can't copyright those limited ways to express the idea because the idea behind the work merges with its expression.C. Patents are used to protect ideas and methods (i. would be a surprise and a fraud upon the public” Baker argued that you can't copyright a method. "The description of the art in a book.The decision in this case has now been codified in 17 U.S.The court said:” To give to the author of the book an exclusive property in the art described therein. Because his book didn't slavishly copy Selden's. only an expression of that method. but he didn't have a patent. lays no foundation for an exclusive claim to the art itself. The Court found that the forms are functional and not expressive. he just used the same bookkeeping system. He only had a copyright. so Selden couldn't copyright the forms for that reason either. though entitled to the benefit of copyright. Therefore. §101. when no examination of its novelty has ever been officially made." The Court found that Selden couldn't copyright the forms because the forms are necessary to the use of the bookkeeping system (i.
215 (1918) International News Service (INS) and the Associated Press (AP) were news organizations that wrote stories and sold them to newspapers.
. and then repackaging and selling the stories to INS's client newspapers. The Trial Court felt that the conduct was unfair but they were not sure if it were actually illegal. INS argued that once AP makes the information available to the public. AP claimed that INS: Bribed newspaper employees to send AP stories to the INS. but that they could still copy AP stories out of published newspapers.Case:
v. In addition.
248 U. INS argued that news does not fall with in the operation of the Copyright Act.S. INS was writing their stories about WWI by reading what AP was reporting. AP appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed. AP appealed. Convinced newspapers to share their AP stories with INS prior to publication. Copied AP stories out of early edition newspapers on the East Coast and sent them to INS customers on the West Coast. INS did not. AP sued INS for getting pre-publication copies of AP's stories. The US Supreme Court affirmed. AP argued that news stories are similar to literary properties and should be protected as such. AP actually had correspondents over in Europe covering WWI. The Trial Court found for AP and issued and injunction to INS telling them to stop the first two practices. they don't control it anymore and can't dictate what people do with it.
all those Civil Procedure fans out there might be interested to notice that this case was decided under Federal common law. In this manner. Basically. organization. and to be distributed and sold to those who will pay money for it". they wouldn't be able to get it at all. AP would still not have lost all value of their product. labor and money. AP's editorial staff was pro-intervention.INS argued that the news is essentially abandoned property. if AP wasn't getting paid a lot. skill. On the other hand. and froze INS reporters out of their briefings. This was pre Erie Doctrine.
. once the paper is published. and as such a company can have limited proprietary interest in it against a competitor (but not the public) who takes advantage of the information. and wanted the US to get involved. They distinguished between the substance of the information and its form. If this case had gone the other way. The British government knew this. The US Supreme Court recognized the dual character of news articles. If INS couldn't get their news from AP. The US Supreme Court upheld the common law rule that there is no copyright in facts and developed the common law doctrine of misappropriation through the tort of unfair competition. Btw. One interesting historical fact was that most of the big stories of the day related to developments in WWI. they might chose not to pay to put reporters in Europe. AP didn't invent the news. there is an economic value to 'news'. The US Supreme Court found that there was a quasi-property right in the news as it is "stock in trade to be gathered at the cost of enterprise. Here. INS was anti-war and wanted the US to stay out. People would still pay AP for their newsfeeds. The Court said that while there is no copyright on the 'facts. and then nobody would be collecting the news. If someone takes your tomatoes. you have no value left. INS's efforts only resulted in a partial decrease in the value of AP's property. the idea of intellectual property is different from chattel such as a farmer's tomatoes.
99 (1879)) which found that a copyright did not give an author the right to prevent others from using the same method. The ADA sued Delta for copyright infringement. Delta argued that taxonomy and nomenclature was not copyrightable. Case : American Dental Association v. §102(b). See 17 U. The ADA appealed. as well as most of the Code that the ADA first created.S. The Trial Court found for Delta. the ADA couldn't stop dentists from using the ADA Code in their forms and records. The Trial Court found that the Code cannot be copyrighted because it just catalogs a field of knowledge. the Court found that taxonomy may not be copyrighted. 1997) The ADA published a book that contained a taxonomy of different dental procedures (aka the Code). or stop Delta from distributing forms that invited dentists to use the ADA's Code.3d 977 (7th Cir.
.That could have had a propaganda effect on the American public. filling cavities) a different number. they came up with a system where they gave every dental procedure (root canals.C. Delta Dental Plans Association
126 F.S. That made it easy to do data entry and keep computer records. Basically. Basically. Therefore. Delta published a book that contained blank forms dentists could use for their records. Selden (101 U. The Appellate Court reversed. The Appellate Court looked to Baker v.
Since direct evidence of actual copying is typically
The Ninth Circuit has established a two-part process for determining "substantial similarity" by applying both the "extrinsic" and "intrinsic" tests. and (2) the defendant's copying of a substantial. 1995). the Court found that it was a violation of the ADA's copyright for Delta to distribute a copy of the code itself. 2) Substantial Similarity Test. the plaintiff may demonstrate copying circumstantially by showing: (1) that the defendant had access to the plaintiff's work. 900 F. Cal.However. Moreover. the sheer worldwide popularity and distribution of the Bond films allows the Court to indulge a presumption of access. and (2) that the defendant's work is substantially similar to the plaintiff's. 1287 (C.
. violated Plaintiffs' "copyrights to sixteen James Bond films and the exclusive intellectual property rights to the James Bond character and the James Bond films" through Defendants' recent commercial for its Honda del Sol automobile. legally protectable unavailable. The "extrinsic" test compares specific. and its advertising agency Rubin Postaer and Associates. Supp. American Honda Motor Co.D. the casting director's desire to cast "James Bond"-type actors and actresses. This case arises out of Plaintiffs Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer's and Danjaq's claim that Defendants American Honda Motor Co. A claim for copyright infringement requires that the plaintiff prove (1) its ownership of the copyright in a particular work. portion of such work. Case : Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v. 1) Access: The court stated that the defendants had substantial access. are factors sufficient to establish Defendants' access to Plaintiffs' work.
The New York state court dismissed the infringement claim for lack of jurisdiction. an officer once posted in South Bronx as a lieutenant for a year. Film opens with the murder of two cops by an insane prostitute. draws a social pattern of South Bronx.2d 44 Facts Appellant Walker. publishes a book based on his experiences. Book is titled “Fort Apache” and is published in 1976.objective criteria of two works on the basis of an analytic dissection of the following elements of each work -. Fair use doctrine: the Court must look to whether Defendants' use is of a commercial nature and whether. INC. Judgment at the court of Appeals
.TIME LIFE FILMS. dialogue. Murphy and Corelli experience the crime infested South Bronx and the myriad characters therein. The Defendants‟ company contracts one Heywood Gould to write the screenplay for the to-be-made film “Fort Apache-The Bronx”. homas WALKER v. The federal court granted the defendants‟ motion after reading the book. Appellant contended that the defendants infringed his copyright by copying from the manuscript of the book. viewing the movie and considering expert opinion. characters. and becomes a bestseller.plot. 784 F. while narrating harrowing impressions of myriad crimes. setting. pace. Walker. ranging from murders to robberies. It was held that no reasonable observer could find the works substantially similar. the infringing work is transformative of the original. Subsequent action was brought in federal court. mood. Defendants accepted Gould‟s access to Walker‟s manuscript. but stuck to the dissimilarity of the two media. and to what extent. While searching for the killer prostitute. and sequence of events. theme. All the scenes in this are governed by scenes affaire.
death of two policemen. Photographer appealed. prostitutes. These similarities therefore are unprotectible as “scenes a faire. Substantial similarity should be judged by spontaneous response of the ordinary lay observer. The appeal was accordingly dismissed Joshua ETS-HOKIN. No reasonable observer could find the two media similar beyond nonprotectable ideas. vermin and derelict cars would appear in any realistic work about the work of policemen in the South Bronx. EtsHokin filed this action against Skyy alleging infringement of his copyrights in the 1993 photographs. Appellants claims of specific similarities viz.v.SKYY SPIRITS INC Facts In 1993. The district court originally granted summary judgment in favor of Skyy on the ground that Ets-Hokin's photographs were not sufficiently original to merit copyright protection. photographer Ets-Hokin took a series of photographs of Skyy's iconic blue vodka bottle for use in a marketing campaign. Copying would be inferred only when similarities extend to protectable elements of the two works. not to the ideas themselves. In 1996. the defendants did not try to pass the movie off as an adaptation of the book. are not specific as such. which placed the historical fact of the murders in the public domain and beyond the scope of copyright protection. Neither does copyright protection extend to copyright or “stock” themes. Later it was also held that by advertising in a magazine. Copyright protection granted to appellant‟s book extends only to its particular expression of ideas.
. crime infested neighbourhood. especially when the advertisements did not even mention Walker and his book. No reasonable observer could infer that the movie was related to the book. commonly linked to a particular genre. scenes that necessarily result from the choice of a setting or situation. The killing of the two police officers actually occurred and was reported in the news media. Skyy later hired two other photographers to photograph the bottle and used these photographs in advertising and other marketing materials. Elements such as drunks.” that is.
their similarity is inevitable.” Under the doctrine of scenes a faire. courts will not protect a copyrighted work from infringementif the idea underlying the work can be expressed only in one way. In such an instance. which protects against only virtually identical copying. He wanted to be considered a co-author. The photographs are therefore not infringing. the angles differ. Ets-Hokin is left with only a “thin” copyright. as do the reflections and background. Though the Ets-Hokin and Skyy photographs are indeed similar. given the shared concept. the shadows and highlighting differ. Under the merger doctrine. and an accounting for profits. Lee 202 F3d 1227 (9th Cir. it is said that the work's idea and expression “merge. When the movie was released. they differ in as many ways as possible within the constraints of the commercial product shot. subtracting the unoriginal elements. Aalmuhammed argued that his contributions to the film were significant enough to make the work a joint work. of photographing the Skyy bottle. He sought a declaratory judgment to that effect. 1999) Aalmuhammed was an expert on Malcolm X.
. courts will not protect a copyrighted work from infringement if the expression embodied in the work necessarily flows from a commonplace idea. Skyy's photographs are not virtually identical to those of Ets-Hokin. He was hired by Lee to be a consultant for a movie about Malcolm “x”.Judgment Ets-Hokin argues that Skyy's photographs are substantially similar to those in which he holds the copyrights and that they are therefore infringing. When we apply the limiting doctrines. and helped with editing. so he sued. However. Aalmuhammed suggested script revisions. offered direction to some actors. The only constant is the bottle itself. the credits listed Aalmuhammed as a technical consultant. Indeed. The lighting differs. his claim fails upon application of the defensive doctrines of merger and scenes a faire. Case : Aalmuhammed v. or idea.
The Appellate Court looked to 17 U. Sarony (111 U. as a co-author of a "joint work. The Court found that it was good public policy to restrict the definition of author. and that authorship is not the same thing as making a valuable and copyrightable contribution” The Court looked to Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. Coaching of actors. must be turned into an expression in a form subject to copyright. It would be absurd to find that Aalmuhammed was author when Lee was not.The Trial Court found for Lee. He was working for Lee. In addition." The Court found that Aalmuhammed was not 'superintending' anything. does not result in a copyrightable contribution to the motion picture." We hold that authorship is required under the statutory definition of a joint work. §101 and noted that in order to be a co-author of a joint work. The Court noted that even Lee was under contract with the movie studio in a work for hire arrangement and so was not even an author himself. Otherwise people like Lee would never consult others because they'd be worried about losing control of the rights. The Court found that Aalmuhammed's contributions to the work were enough to be independently copyrightable. and arranging the place where the people are to be . The Appellate Court affirmed. v. however. which held that an author (of a photograph) is "the person who has superintended the arrangement.C. to be copyrightable. the movie's director.the man who is the effective cause of that. Aalmuhammed appealed. However. Lee controlled all aspects of the movie. who has actually formed the picture by putting the person in position. That would make the arts less accurate and interesting. there was never an intent on the part of Lee or the movie's producers to make Aalmuhammed a co-author. 53 (1884)). the Court found that Aalmuhammed was not an author.
. but rather in the whole work. It was strictly work for hire.He is not claiming copyright merely in what he wrote or contributed. a person must "make an independently copyrightable contribution" to the whole work. Furthermore ”” Aalmuhammed established that he contributed substantially to the film. but not that he was one of its "authors.S. The court further stated that :” Speaking Arabic to persons in charge of the mosque.S.
1994) Erickson worked for Trinity Theatre where she prepared three plays for the company. which says that a contributor is only a co-author if that person's contribution would be theoretically copyrightable by itself. The copyrightable subject matter test. and therefore controlled the rights to the plays. The Trial Court found for Erickson. the two authors should be regarded as joint authors of the resulting work. When Trinity continued to perform the plays. therefore they could not be considered co-authors of the plays." Professor Nimmer distinguishes his de minimis standard from the standard for
copyrightability. The Appellate Court considered two approaches for determining if someone was a co-author: Professor Nimmer. took the position that all that should be required to achieve joint author status is more than a de minimis contribution by each author.
.Case : Erickson v. even over the objections of the others. Under copyright law. 13 F. the late scholar on copyright. The Court found that the copyrightable subject matter test was the proper test to use. since the actors made suggestions about the play to Erickson during production and rehearsals. Trinity Theatre. The Appellate Court affirmed. .Goldstein. They had a falling out and Erickson quit. "De minimis" requires that "more than a word or line must be added by one who claims to be a joint author. Inc. . As an example. a joint work (aka one with multiple authors) can be licensed by any one of the authors. Trinity appealed. with one contributing only uncopyrightable plot ideas and another incorporating those ideas into a completed literary expression. Erickson sued for copyright infringement.. Trinity was a co-author. Erickson argued that she was the author.3d 1061 (7th Cir. Professor Nimmer asserts that if two authors collaborate. The Court found that the contributions of the actors was not enough to be independently copyrightable. Trinity argued that.
Who is the author of India Wins Freedom? 2. Nooruddin Ahmed and Fatima Begum signed two documents. Humanyun Kabir have the right to execute an agreement with Orient Longman Ltd? Issue 1 Author is defined under Section 2(d) of the Indian Copyright Act.provides that where in a literary work a name purporting to be that of an author appears on the work as published then the person whose name so appears shall be presumed.Goldstein. wrote the book India Wins Freedom.The copyrightable subject matter test. during his life time.
. Delhi and National Library. Kabir requested the National Archives. Prof. According to his daughter the said book was composed and written by her father and he is the author thereof. giving their consent to the arrangements which had been arrived at for the publication of the book. Before the book could be published. Prof. Humayun Kabir. The Court found that the contributions of the actors was not enough to be independently copyrightable. There were two issues that were raised in this case: 1. Najma Heptulla vs Orient Longman Ltd Maulana Azad. Did Prof. It was understood that the Publishers shall have the first option to publish the complete book as originally composed and now lying under sealed cover.. An agreement was entered into between Prof. unless the contrary is proved. therefore they could not be considered co-authors of the plays. Section 55(2). was associated with the writing of the book. Calcutta to act as trustees and required the book to be published after 30 years of Maulana Azad's death. The Court found that the copyrightable subject matter test was the proper test to use. Maulana Azad died. which says that a contributor is only a co-author if that person's contribution would be theoretically copyrightable by itself. to be the author of the work. 50% of the royalty was to be paid to Fatima Begum and Nooruddin Ahmed in equal shares. Humayun Kabir and Orient Longman for the publication of the book.
In the present case. Kabir and Maulana Azad are joint authors of the book. Universal Pictures Corp. as a holder of the copyright can have is to adequate royalty from the publication of the work.” SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY: Case : Nichol’s v. Humayun Kabir which resulted in the book India Wins Freedom. Both the subject matter and the language are important. Having enjoyed the fruits of the said agreement for all these years the legal representatives of Maulana Azad are estopped from challenging the validity of the said agreement. Issue 2 The Court held that the agreement document by the legal representatives would show that the plaintiff's grand-mother agreed to the arrangement which had been made by Prof.2d 119. ” “Surely the intention of the Copyright Act cannot be to give the status of an author only to the person in whose language the literary piece is written while completely ignoring the person who contributed the entire material which enabled the person to show his mastery over the language”. it is clear that there was active and close collaboration and cooperation between Maulana Azad and Prof. Kabir with Orient Longmans. Kabir belies the contention that it is he who is the sole author. He has paid 50% royalty to legal representatives of Maulana Azad.The Court held that Sole author is not existent in the present work. Prof. The Court disagreed with the view presented in Donoghue v. What happened?
. “When the desire. Even the conduct of Prof. 45 F. It is her conduct of accepting the royalty. Allied Newspaper and held that “A literary work consists of matter or material or subject which is expressed in a language and is written down.. Therefore. intention and direction of the author was for the publication of the book then the only interest which a legal representative of the deceased author.
Upon any work. concerning a marriage between a Jewish man and an Irish woman and the resulting difficulties between both families. the less it can be copyrighted. a plagiarist may excise a separate scene or he may appropriate part of the dialogue. his property is never extended. the controversy chiefly centers upon the characters and sequence of incident. whether at common-law or under statute. since otherwise the playwright could prevent the use of his ideas. and at times might consist only of its title. to which. was infringed by defendant‟s movie about the marriage of an Irish man and a Jewish woman. The less developed a character in a play is. but there is a point in this series of abstractions where they are no longer protected. Plaintiff alleged that the copyright in her play. Then the question is whether the part so taken is substantial. so that prior decisions cannot help much in a new case. also focusing on differences between their families. that is the penalty an author must bear for marking them too indistinctly. That has never been the law.
. a great number of patterns of increasing generality will fit equally well. it is the same question as arises in the case of any other copyrighted work. that the right cannot be limited literally to the text. and therefore not a fair use of the copyrighted work. The last may perhaps be no more than the most general statement of what the play is about. decision is more troublesome. else a plagiarist would escape by immaterial variations. But when the plagiarist does not take out a block in situ. the whole matter is necessarily at large. which concluded that defendant producer‟s motion picture did not infringe upon plaintiff‟s copyright in a play. as soon as literal appropriation ceases to be the test. apart from their expression. as more and more of the incident is left out. but. but an abstract of the whole. As respects infringement of copyrights in plays. and especially upon a play. these being the substance. Summary: It is essential to any protection of literary property. When plays are concerned.Plaintiff author appealed a decree from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Judgement was: The copying should be substantial to amount infringement The content of any copyright material goes to public domain to some extent Stock characters cannot be copyrighted. Porter argued that he had never heard any of Arnstein's songs and that he came up with his songs himself (a.Though the plaintiff discovered the vein. The less developed the character. He claimed that another songwriter named Porter had plagiarized some of his songs.
. there are two elements to establishing infringement: (1)There must be evidence that the defendant had access to the copyrighted work. He sued for copyright infringement. Summary: Arnstein was a songwriter who had published a number of popular songs.k. The Court relied on the testimony of expert witnesses about the similarity of the songs. The court here gave the concept of abstraction filtration comparison test. The Appellate Court reversed and remanded. 1946 U. Case : Arnstein v. App What happened? The plaintiff alleged that six of Cole Porter's highly popular songs had been plagiarized from several of plaintiff's songs. The Trial Court found for Porter in summary judgment. The Appellate Court found that generally. The Trial Court found that Porter's songs were not substantially similar. Arnstein appealed. the theme was too generalized an abstraction from what she wrote.S. Porter 154 F. so defined. Defendant denied ever having seen or heard any of plaintiff's songs.a independent creation). she could not keep it to herself. the less they can be copyrighted. (2)There must be evidence that the works are substantially similar.2d 464.
The Appellate Court found that there are two elements to establishing infringement: There must be evidence that the defendant had access to the copyrighted work. Bolton appealed. thus. he was entitled to a trial by jury.3d 477 (9th Cir. There must be evidence that the works are substantially similar. Bolton recorded a similar-sounding song.but illicit copying has to be proved. and otherwise reversed and remanded. or The plaintiff's work was "widely disseminated.
. The court modified the trial court judgment in part. The Appellate Court affirmed. The Isley Brothers sued for copyright infringement. If the jury and the expert testimony found the 2 songs inexcusably alike then the case of substantial similarity can be easily proved.The court found out that since the defendant had access to over 1 million sold copies of the plaintiffs work he was not entitled to summary judgement. The Court found that whether two songs were substantially similar enough to constitute copyright infringement was a matter of fact for a jury to decide. The court said proof of adequate copying not enough. founded on statute. Case : Three Boys Music Corp. v. The Court noted that they personally thought that the Isley's evidence that the song had been widely disseminated was pretty weak. The Trial Court found for the Isley Brothers." The Court found that these were very fact-dependent issues so they would trust the jury's decision. Bolton argued that he couldn't remember ever hearing the Isley Brothers song and that he came up with his song all by himself (aka independent creation). 2000) The Isley Brothers recorded a song. The Court found there were two ways to establish access: A particular chain of events is established between the plaintiff's work and the defendant's access to that work (like the defendant dealt with the same publisher as the plaintiff). because plaintiff's complaint was an action at law which included a jury demand. Many years later. Michael Bolton 212 F. and sought money damages.
v. and that Bolton really liked music similar to the Isley Brothers. McDonald's admitted that they got the idea from the Kroffts' but that their characters were dissimilar enough to fall outside the scope of Kroffts' copyright protection. (45 F. and not just of an idea. The intrinsic test.The Isley Brothers had provided testimony from dee-jays that they had played the song on the radio in the city Bolton grew up in. subject matter). Case : Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions. McDonald's didn't directly copy the costumes and had all different characters. The extrinsic test. but they had the same style and feel as the Kroffts' work. materials used. which looks at specific criteria that can be listed and analyzed (type of artwork. The Appellate Court noted that you can copyright an expression. The Kroffts argued that the McDonald's commercials were substantially similar to their work. Inc. McDonald's Corp. 562 F.
. but not an idea. 1930)).2d 119 (2d Cir. The Court found that there were two tests that courts should apply to show if a work was substantially similar enough to be a copy of an expression. 1977) The Kroffts made a television show that contained people dressed up in funny costumes. which considers the impressions of the average reasonable reader or spectator. The Trial Court found for the Kroffts.2d 1157 (9th Cir. This is a matter of fact and should be decided by a jury. McDonald's appealed. The Kroffts sued for copyright infringement. The Appellate Court affirmed. This can be decided as a matter of law and with expert testimony. See Nichols v. McDonalds was a restaurant that ran a series of commercials containing people dressed up in funny costumes similar to the ones on the Krofft's show. Universal Pictures Corp.
4 program from CA's ADAPTER source code. Inc. Altai.e. the court narrowed its focus of inquiry to ascertaining whether Altai's OSCAR 3. Altai sold a similar kind of scheduling software. The court held that there was no infringement in the second version and applied a new test for substantial similarity. known as
the "abstraction/filtration/comparison" test.2d 693 (2d Cir..5. the plaintiff must establish its ownership of a valid copyright. Summary: In a copyright infringement suit.5 was substantially similar to ADAPTER. The appellate court proceeded with the assumption that Altai had access to the ADAPTER code when creating OSCAR 3. Therefore it was still an infringement. The Court noted that "duplication or near identity is not necessary to establish infringement. Altai admitted having copied approximately 30% of the OSCAR 3. to write a program with the same functionality. which they did. the works were not substantially similar. Inc. in determining whether Altai had unlawfully copied protected aspects of CA's ADAPTER. CA appealed.are protected by copyright. and did not challenge the district court's finding of infringement. The Trial Court found for Altai. CA wrote a computer program that would allow their scheduling software to run on different kinds of computers. he literal elements of computer programs. 1992). Thus. Universal Pictures Co. their source and object codes. McDonald's characters still invoked the same "concept and feel" as the Kroffts. Here. In Abstraction the court breaks up the program
.The Court applied the tests and found that while under the extrinsic test. was developed that was largely based on the reasoning in Nichols v. What happened? The court had to determine whether and to what extent the "non-literal" aspects of a computer program. are the subject of copyright protection. i. 982 F. and that the defendant copied the copyrighted work.those aspects that are not reduced to written code . CA sued Altai for copyright infringement." Case : Computer Associates Int'l. so they asked their programmers (who were kept segregated from CA's program). v.
Lotus sued for copyright infringement. It noted that CA may be unable to recover damages for its trade secrets which are embodied in OSCAR 3. that CA may not obtain a double recovery where the damages for copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation are coextensive. Also filter out everything that is dictated by efficiency. 1995) Lotus developed software to make spreadsheets. data structures. the court looks at the components of the program which are not absolutely essential to fulfilling the abstract function of the program to see if they are similar. Further. the court decides what components are absolutely essential to fulfilling the abstract function of the program at the various levels.
Inc. they wrote all the code themselves. The Borland spreadsheet used almost identical menus and commands. or taken from the public domain in order to find "a core of protectable expression.4. from very general to very specific.
.Comparison test and found that the copyrightable elements from CA's program were not substantially similar to those elements in Altai's program.into different levels. Main purpose. The Court performed the Abstraction . In Filtration. Basically. They just used the same menus and had the same commands and macros.Filtration .4. this case said that what the courts need to do is to sift out all elements of the allegedly infringed program which was ideas of dictated by efficiency or external factors.4 since Altai had conceded copyright liability and damages for its incorporation of ADAPTER into OSCAR 3. external factors. Borland didn't copy any of Lotus' software.
49 F. Borland made competing software. program structure. In Comparison.
v. The Court vacated the judgment of the district court and remand for reconsideration of those aspects of CA's trade secret claims related to Altai's alleged constructive notice of Arney's (the employee) theft of CA's trade secrets and incorporation of those secrets into OSCAR 3.3d 807 (1st Cir." At that point the courts should focus on whether there are substantial similarities between any elements within this core in the two programs.g. or in the public domain. modules. source code. E. algorithms.
Those were just a method or processwhich are not copyrightable under 17 U. Carey wrote a similar-sounding song that also became a hit. Borland appealed.3d 841 (9th Cir. Selden (101 U. 99 (1879)). The US Supreme Court affirmed. Swirsky sued for copyright infringement.S. and they analogized that to Lotus' menus. The menu commands are simply the method by which the user controls and operates the program. The Appellate Court found that Lotus' menu commands were uncopyrightable because they were a method of operation. The Court found that the particular selection and arrangement were protectable as a compilation. §102(b). Later.
. Carey 376 F. THE REPRODUCTION RIGHT: Case : Swirsky v. The Court noted that you can't copyright buttons on a VCR that say 'play' and 'record'. The Appellate Court reversed." you could only copyright the underlying computer code.S. The Trial Court found for Lotus. Borland exactly copied over 400 commands. See Baker v. In a concurrence it was argued that Lotus didn't invent the concepts of "print" and "quit" so it shouldn't maintain a monopoly over their use. The Trial Court found that Lotus' menu command hierarchy was a copyrightable expression.C.Borland argued that you couldn't copyright concepts like "cut" and "paste" and "print. 2004) Swirsky wrote a song that was a minor hit.
The Appellate Court found that there is a two-part analysis for infringement: The extrinsic test considers whether two works share a similarity of ideas and expressions as measured by external. but that the chorus was substantially similar. The Court found that in order to be triable.
. The Trial Court granted summary judgment for Carey. Netcom On-Line Communications Services.Swirsky admitted that most of Carey's song was not similar to his song. He posted some Scientology documents in an internet newsgroup. and The intrinsic test which is a subjective comparison that focuses on whether a reasonable audience would find the "total concept and feel" of the works to be similar.Cal. there noted to be an "indicia of a sufficient disagreement concerning the substantial similarities of the two works.Supp. the extrinsic test and the intrinsic test. Swirsky had an expert witness testify about the songs' similarities. Basically. 907 F.D. the Court said that they didn't think Swirsky's expert was good because he emphasized the similar parts of the works and deemphasized the dissimilar parts. 1361 (N. objective criteria. The Court found that Swirsky had failed to present a triable issue on the first part. CONTRIBUTORY AND VICARIOUS INFRINGEMENT: Case : Religious Technology Center v. so the case should be heard by a jury. The Appellate Court reversed and remanded for trial. The Scientologists informed Erlich that he was infringing on their copyright. the extrinsic test." The Court found that Swirsky's expert adequately defined the similarities. Inc. Swirsky appealed. The Trial Court found that there was a two-part test to determining infringement. 1995) Erlich was a former Scientologist who was now critical of the group.
The Court found that Klemesrud and Netcom were not liable for direct infringement because the copying that occurred between the computers on the internet was incidental to Erlich's intentional copying of the documents to the internet. After Klemesrud and Netcom took no action to block Erlich. The Court noted that if Klemesrud and Netcom were liable. The Scientologists argued that when Erlich uploaded the documents. v.
. they also notified Klemesrud. so the total number of potential infringers would be unreasonably large. The Trial Court found that the postings were definitely fixed enough to be copyrightable copies. the right to distribute. they were temporarily stored on Klemesrud's computer. who owned the website Erlich used to post the documents. The Court likened the Klemesrud and Netcom to a photocopy machine where the public can make copies. Peak Computer.2d 511 (1993)). then copies were made and sent by Netcom to places all over the internet. That would be a violation of the Scientologists' right to reproduce. as well as Netcom. The Trial Court denied Klemesrud and Netcom's motion for summary judgment. which was Klemesrud's internet service provider. and the right to publicly display under 17 U. (991 F. Klemesrud and Netcom argued that they weren't responsible for what Erlich was doing. the Scientologists sued everybody for copyright infringement.In addition to sending notice to Erlich. and they did not have the capability of screening their system to find every potential infringer. Inc. See MAI Systems Corp. and told them to block Erlich. then where would it end? Every computer connected to the internet copies data from other places on the internet.C. §106.S.
and could have stopped him if they wanted to. v. induces. causes. and provided advertising. Later Congress enacted 17 U. which establishes "safe harbor" and provides immunity from infringement liability under certain circumstances for internet service providers.2d 1159 (1971) which defined contributory copyright infringement as where "one who. v. Shockingly. Cherry Auction. and receives direct financial benefit from the infringement. (443 F. §512." The Court found that Klemesrud and Netcom should have had knowledge of Erlich's activities. the Court found that there was no evidence that Erlich's infringement gave any financial benefit to Klemesrud or Netcom. 76 F. Inc. The Court found that Klemesrud and Netcom did not relinquish control of their system to Erlich. some of the vendors were found to be selling bootleg music!
.The Court found that even thought §106 is s strict liability Statute. However. The Court found that there was evidence to show that Klemesrud and Netcom had the ability to control Erlich's postings.S. Vendors would rent tables and sell whatever they wanted. 1996) Cherry Auction ran a swap meet. The Court looked to Gershwin Publishing Corp. while Cherry Auction collected an entrance fee from buyers. The Court defined vicarious copyright infringement as where a defendant has the right and ability to control an infringer's acts. Case : Fonovisa Inc. Inc. there should be some element of volition or causation which is lacking where a defendant's system is merely used to create a copy by a third party. and could constitute contributory copyright infringement. or materially contributes to the infringing conduct.3d 259 (9th Cir.C. Columbia Artists Management. Their inaction rose to the level of substantial aid. with knowledge of the infringing activities.
who owned the copyright on some of the bootleg music. so there was evidence they were vicarious copyright infringers. they obtained a 'direct financial benefit'. v. H. induces. it wasn't their job to police what the vendors sold. Cherry Auction was guilty of contributory copyright infringement. and found that with regard to vicarious liability. In "dance hall" cases. there were two lines of cases: In "landlord-tenant" cases. as a matter of law. Cherry Auction argued that they only provided the space.Fonovisa. and obtained a direct financial benefit from the audience who paid to enjoy the infringing performance. Bernstein and Co. with knowledge of the infringing activities. Fonovisa argued that Cherry Auction was (or should have been) aware that vendors were selling illegal music on their premises."
.2d 304 (1963)). and vicarious copyright infringement. The Trial Court found for Cherry Auction in summary judgment. and since they collected admission at the door from people who came to buy bootleg music. The Court found that since Cherry Auction retained the right to kick any vendor out the 'controlled the premises'. Green Co. (316 F. or materially contributes to the infringing conduct. The Trial Court found that.L. The Court defined contributory copyright infringement as where "one who. Fonovisa appealed. causes. The Appellate Court reversed and remanded for trial. Cherry Auction could not be liable for sales by vendors who leased their premises. Therefore. the courts had held that a landlord who lacked knowledge of infringing acts of its tenants and who exercised no control over the leased premises was not liable for infringing sales by the tenants. sued Cherry Auction for copyright infringement. The Appellate Court looked to Shapiro. the courts had found that a landlord can be liable for infringing performances when the landlord could control the premises.
The Court found that Cherry Auction knew about the bootleg music.. it was held that the sale of home video tape recorders to the general public did not constitute contributory infringement of copyrights on television programs since there was a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcasts timeshifted by private viewers and the plaintiff copyright holders did not demonstrate that timeshifting would cause any likelihood of non-minimal harm to the potential market for. alleging that because consumers used petitioners‟ recorders to record respondents‟ copyrighted works. White. J. JJ. 417. J.. Universal City Studios. Respondents sued petitioners for copyright infringement.
Summary: Petitioners manufactured and sold home video tape recorders. section 101.S. and Brennan. of Am. The U. In an opinion by Stevens. Supreme Court held that petitioners demonstrated a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders that licensed works for broadcast on free television would not object to having such broadcasts recorded for later viewing by private viewers. petitioners were liable for the copyright infringement allegedly committed by those consumers in violation of the Copyright Act. Respondents owned the copyrights to television programs broadcast on public airwaves.. The recorders were therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses and respondents‟ sale of the recorders to the general public did not constitute copyright infringement. their copyrighted works. What happened? Petitioners appealed a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding petitioners liable for contributory infringement in respondents‟ suit against petitioners for copyright infringement in violation of the Copyright Act. Inc. and advertised to get more people to come to the swap meet.. Case : Sony Corp. or the value of. and O‟Connor.S. there was evidence that they were contributory copyright infringers. Ch. v.
. expressing the views of Burger. 464 U.
S.. (2) The distributors were aware that users of their software used it primarily to download copyrighted files. which allowed computer users to share electronic files through peer-to-peer networks were sued by a group of copyright holders who: (1) Alleged that the distributors had knowingly and intentionally distributed their software to enable users to infringe copyrighted works in violation of the Copyright Act sec 101. Inc. (1984) 464 U. alleging that the distributors were liable for copyright infringement because the software of the distributors was intended to allow users to infringe copyrighted works. the distributors generated income by selling advertising space (4) No evidence that the distributors had tried to filter copyrighted downloads or otherwise to impede the sharing of copyrighted files. Summary: Two companies that distributed free software.CASE : MGM Studios Inc. 417. Upon the grant of a writ of certiorari. v. Ed. although the distributors software could be used to share any type of digital file. Universal City Studios. Court stated that: (1) Billions of files were shared across P2P Network. of America v. the holders appealed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which affirmed summary judgment in favor of the distributors. users of the software had mostly used it for unauthorized sharing of copyrighted music and video files. 913(9th cir) What happened? Petitioner copyright holders sued respondent software distributors. Ltd. (3) distributors received no revenue from users of their software. 545 U. (2) Sought damages and an injunction–where. 78 L. Grokster. 2d 574 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that distribution of a commercial product that was capable of substantial non-infringing uses in this case gave rise
material from user‟s
. Based on Sony Corp.S.
471 U. it was held that: (1) One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright …….C. for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device. 17 U. Summary: The owners of the copyright on a former president‟s memoirs.is liable.
. § 107. regardless of the device‟s lawful uses. brought suit for copyright infringement and other wrongs when another magazine acquired a copy of the manuscript and rushed into print with an article consisting of quotes.S. who had sold the exclusive right to print prepublication excerpts to a national magazine. J. v. (3) Infringement was overwhelming source of the distributor‟s revenue from the software. Nation Enters.. 539 What happened? Petitioners sought review of a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which was entered in favor of respondents on a finding that respondents did not infringe petitioners‟ copyright because use of the material was excused by the public‟s interest in the subject matter and by a finding that the fair use defense was established under the Copyright Act. under the Copyright Act.S. In an opinion by Souter. Publrs. (2) There was substantial evidence against the distributors on all elements of inducement of infringement. expressing the unanimous view of the court. and facts drawn from the manuscript. leading the first magazine to cancel its contract.
FAIR USE: CASE : Harper & Row.to infringement since the distributor had actual knowledge of specific instances of infringement and failed to act on that knowledge. paraphrases.S.
C. the central importance of the quoted expressions in the memoirs and in the article. joined by Burger. and Blackmun. To negate fair use one need only show that if the challenged use should become widespread. it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work.United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the copyright protection applied only to the use of the author‟s particular expression rather than of the facts recorded. Inc. which they sold to Acuff-Rose. the unpublished nature of the work. J. Acuff-Rose sued for copyright infringement. C. it was held that there was no basis in the First Amendment for a rule giving the fair use doctrine broader scope in cases involving a public figure‟s manuscript. Powell.S. This inquiry must take account not only of harm to the original but also of harm to the market for derivative works. The court reversed the appellate court judgment. Rehnquist.. Case : Campbell v. 569 (1994) Orbison and Dees wrote a song called 'Pretty Woman'. The song went on to sell over 250k records. and Stevens. Campbell made the song anyway. and the adverse impact of the article on the contract with the first magazine and on the marketability of first serialization rights in general. Acuff-Rose argued that fair use was not applicable because
. in view of its intended commercial purpose of supplanting the copyright holders‟ valuable right to control first publication. 510 U.. JJ. and that the second magazine‟s limited use of direct quotations from the manuscript was a “fair use” which was protected under the Copyright Act . Acuff -Rose Music. In an opinion by O‟Connor. Campbell asked Acuff-Rose for permission to make a parody version of the song that he claimed was intended to "through comical lyrics to satirize the original work.J. and held that respondents‟ unauthorized use of quotations from a public figure‟s unpublished manuscript was not sanctioned by the Copyright Act‟s fair use doctrine.. and that the second magazine‟s article was not a “fair use” of the manuscript. §107) because his song was a satire of the original.S. They said no. Campbell argued that he was protected by the fair use provision (17 U.
satire doesn't require recognition of the original material) The effect on the potential market. and Market harm had been established by a presumption attaching to commercial uses. The US Supreme Court reversed and remanded. The Court found that this didn't really apply since the artistic value of parodies is often found in their ability to invariably copy popular works of the past. The nature of the copyrighted work. Is the purpose and character of the use commercial or non-commercial? The Court found that just because Campbell's use was commercial doesn't create a presumption that it is not fair use. but that copying the 'heart' is required in order to be a successful parody. The Court found that in general parodies do not harm the marketability of the original work because the two serve different market functions. it couldn't be said that he took more of the original work than was necessary. The amount of the original work used. It is just one factor to be considered. However. (On the other hand. The US Supreme Court noted that parodies in general might be covered by fair use or they might not. The Trial Court found for Campbell.Campbell appropriated the work for commercial use. depending on the specific circumstances. It can only be parody if you can recognize the original material. Campbell had taken too much of the original work by taking the "heart" of the original and making it the "heart" of a new work. then they might have a case. The Appellate Court reversed. Campbell appealed.
. if Acuff-Rose could show that they lost the chance to sell the rights to another parodist because of Campbell's version. Since Campbell substituted mostly his own lyrics. The Appellate Court looked to §107 and found that Campbell's use did not qualify as fair use because: The commercial nature of the parody rendered it presumptively unfair. The Court found that Campbell had used the 'heart' of the original work. The Court used the four-factor test of §107. Acuff-Rose appealed.
but explained how to modify a program so it would run on a Sega console. The Appellate Court reversed. Accolade got some Sega consoles. 1992) Sega made video game consoles and licensed the rights to third-party video game developers to make games for their console.2d 1510 (9th Cir.C. The Appellate Court found that based on §107 there is a four-factor test for determining if something counts as fair use: Is the purpose and character of the use commercial or noncommercial? The Court found that while Accolade ultimate intended to make money selling video games. §102(b). reverse engineered how the computer chips worked. creative video games.S. §106(1).S.
. they did nothing wrong according to 17 U.C. Accolade appealed. §107).C. The court found out that: The Court found that there were aspects of Sega's code that were unprotected by copyright. Inc. Sega sued for copyright infringement for copying the code on their computer chips. v. the direct purpose in copying Sega's code was simply to study the functional requirements of the console's compatibility. Accolade argued that they were protected by the fair use provision (17 U.S. In addition.977 F. Accolade's work helped the public because lots of companies started using their information to make exciting. But there was no way to examine them without also copying the copyrighted parts. The nature of the copyrighted work. and then created a manual that had no Sega computer code in it. Accolade argued that they had never actually copied any of the computer code on Sega's chips. Accolade. and so they had made a copy for purposes of 17 U. In addition. The Trial Court found for Sega. Accolade wanted to sell their games for the Sega console but didn't want to pay Sega's licensing fee. Since those specification were not copyrightable.Case : Sega Enterprises Ltd. They figured out how to get their games compatible with the Sega console and started selling them. The Appellate Court found that Accolade did reproduce Sega's computer code. they just copied the specifications for how to write the software.
However. people who bought the knock off wouldn't buy the original because they already had essentially the same game. the Court found that Accolade's copying was protected by fair use. The effect on the potential market. Inc. if a company made Pac-man and another company made a Pac-man knock off. this factor wasn't meant to be applied to competition like that. some people would buy both." Based on their balancing of the four factors. if one company sold Pac-man and another company sold Space Invaders. that didn't mean much because the final product (the video games) did not contain any infringing material.The Court noted that if someone couldn't look at the code to see the uncopyrighted parts. 2000) Sony made video game consoles and licensed the rights to third-party video game developers to make games for their console. Accolade's games could legitimately compete in the marketplace with Sega's games.3d 596 (9th Cir. "I don't need to buy Pac-man since I already have Space Invaders. The video games were designed to only work with Sony's console. No one would say.
. Connectix Corp. Case: Sony Computer Entertainment. The Court found that Accolade's work did not stop people from buying Sega's video games. which might reduce Sega's sales. For example. The Court found that there was no other way Accolade could have learned about the functionality of the console without copying as much as they did copy. v.
203 F. and people who only bought one would pick the one they thought was more fun. However. While they did copy the entire code. then Sega would have a de facto monopoly on things they couldn't legitimate get a copyright on The amount of the original work used.
Any loss that Sony suffered as a result of this competition did not compel a finding of nofair use. The nature of the copyrighted work. Sony sued Connectix for copyright infringement for copying the code on their computer chips.Connectix made an 'emulator' program that allowed people to play the video games on a computer. The amount of the original work used. Connectix appealed. And the only way to see those elements was to copy all of the code on the chip. and then wrote a computer program that would do the same thing as Sony's code.C. reverse engineered how the code on the computer chips worked.
. The Court found there were unprotectable elements within Sony's chips that could only be protected by a patent. Connectix could use those elements. the direct purpose in copying Sony's code was just to understand how they worked. that didn't mean much because the final product (the emulator) did not contain any infringing material. The Court found that Connectix did copy a substantial portion of Sony's copyrighted elements.The Appellate Court reversed. However. The Appellate Court found that based on §107 there is a four-factor test for determining if something counts as fair use: Is the purpose and character of the use commercial or non-commercial? The Court found that Connectix's work was 'moderately transformative' because it let people play games on a platform they couldn't otherwise use. The Trial Court found for Sony. Connectix got a Sony console.S. The effect on the potential market. §107). The Court found that Connectix's emulator was a legitimate competitor to Sony. Connectix argued that reverse engineering was protected by the fair use provision (17 U. The Court found that although Connectix's ultimate purpose was selling things. Since Sony had no patent.
the court was faced with a copyright infringement suit against the owner of a chain of department stores where a concessionaire was selling counterfeit recordings. L. and because the proprietor obtained direct financial benefit from the infringement. Bernstein And Co. which allegedly infringed Shapiro's copyrights by selling bootleg copies. Green's business relationship with Jalen. H. Shapiro.2d 304 (2d Cir. based on factual findings as to H. the Court found that Connectix's copying was protected by fair use.). PROCEDURAL FACTS The lower court concluded.L. In Shapiro. even though the defendant was unaware of the infringement. Laid down „landlord-tenant’ and „dance hall‟ tests. and
. The Shapiro court ultimately imposed liability. Green Company) which allegedly engaged in contributory infringement of those copyrights by virtue of its business relationship with the record concessionaire. Inc.L. Bernstein and Co..Based on their balancing of the four factors. Green Co. and the chain store in which the record concessionaire was based (H. FACTS The plaintiff in the underlying action was the proprietor of certain copyrights (Shapiro. 316 F. and it sued two defendants: a record concessionaire (Jalen Amusement Company. reasoning that the store proprietor had the power to cease the conduct of the concessionaire. that as a matter of law no contributory infringement could have occurred. V.).1963) SUMMARY Landmark case dealing with secondary liability (vicarious liability) for copyright infringement by sales of counterfeit recordings.
Circuit Judge. Columbia Artists Management American Society of Composers. Authors. 1965 concert artists managed by it performed 'Bess. (The lower court found as a matter of fact that Jalen did in fact infringe. If the landlord lets his premises without knowledge of the impending infringement by his tenant. it has been held that the landlord is not liable for his tenant's wrongdoing.the landlord leasing his property at a fixed rental to a tenant who engages in copyright-infringing conduct on the leased premises. Knowledge was not relevant. (CAMI) to determine whether CAMI is liable for and can be compelled to pay license fees when musical compositions in the ASCAP repertory are performed at concerts sponsored by local community concert associations promoted by CAMI.) HELD Landlord-tenant test . The Court of Appeals. You Is My Woman Now' publicly for profit at a concert
. Kaufman. charges a fixed rental and receives no other benefit from the infringement. Dance hall manager financially gains from the infringing activities and holds the right and ability to stop such infringing activities but chooses not to hence would be liable vicariously. and Jalen declined to appeal.dismissed the complaint as to Green. and Publishers (ASCAP) brought this copyright infringement action against Columbia Artists Management. Dance hall test . In this test litigation CAMI concedes that on January 9. and contributes in no way to it.the proprietor or manager of a dance hall or music hall leasing his premises to or hiring a dance band. Shapiro appealed this legal conclusion. which brings in customers and profits to the proprietor by performing copyrighted music but without complying with the terms of the Copyright Act. Inc. held that store owner was liable for unauthorized sale of „bootleg‟ records infringing on plaintiffs' copyrights. exercises no supervision over him. He based this conclusion on the observation that the owner retained ultimate right of supervision over conduct of record concession and concessionaire's employees and reserved for itself a proportionate share of gross receipts from concessionaire's sale of phonograph records.
Gershwin Publishing Corporation V.
. one who. 101 (1964). see. Green Co. Inc. Inc.. M.' an interest which is protected by 101 of the Act which holds accountable 'any person (who) shall infringe the copyright. in Screen Gems-Columbia Music. For example... v. 256 F. of
.' Although the Act does not specifically delineate what kind or degree of participation in an infringement is actionable. even though he has no actual knowledge that copyright monopoly is being impaired. Tenn. Similarly. For example.. the district court held that an advertising agency which placed non-infringing advertisements for the sale of infringing records.S. induces. v.N.D.Witmark & Sons v. the copyright proprietor. Although vicarious liability was initially predicated upon the agency doctrine of respondent superior. and that the performing artists and local association are. 22 F. this court recently held that even in the absence of an employer-employee relationship one may be vicariously liable if he has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities. H. Mark Fi Records. liable for infringement under the Copyright Act.2d 412.1966). to perform the copyrighted work publicly for profit. CAMI takes the position that its participation in that infringing performance did not render it jointly and severally liable for copyright infringement. causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another. Bernstein & Co.g.sponsored by the Port Washington Community Concert Association without the permission of plaintiff Gershwin Publishing Company.Supp. it has long been held that one may be liable for copyright infringement even though he has not himself performed the protected composition. or reason to know. 399 (S... supervising and controlling' the local organization and by 'knowingly participating' in its infringement. 316 F. may be held liable as a 'contributory' infringer. 17 U. a radio station which broadcast such advertisements and a packaging agent which shipped the infringing records could each be held liable as a 'contributory' infringer if it were shown to have had knowledge. L. a person who has promoted or induced the infringing acts of the performer has been held jointly and severally liable as a 'vicarious' infringer. 1(e). 1927). Section 1(e) of the Copyright Act bestows upon the copyright proprietor 'the exclusive right .. The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff upon its finding that CAMI had caused the copyright infringement by 'organizing.C. with knowledge of the infringing activity. 1963). Calloway.2d 304 (2 Cir. Shapiro.. 414 (E.D.Y. e. therefore.
it is clear that the local association depended upon CAMI for direction in matters such as this. With knowledge that its artists included copyrighted compositions in their performances. therefore. The district court properly held CAMI liable as a 'vicarious' and a 'contributory' infringer. and vicariously liable as the result of. CAMI's pervasive participation in the formation and direction of this association and its programming of compositions presented amply support the district court's finding that it 'caused this copyright infringement. responsible for. CAMI knew that copyrighted works were being performed at the Port Washington concert and that neither the local association nor the performing artists would secure a copyright license.
. the infringement by those primary infringers. that CAMI was in a position to police the infringing conduct of its artists. It was.' Although CAMI had no formal power to control either the local association or the artists for whom it served as agent. Their potential liability was predicated upon 'the common law doctrine that one who knowingly participates or furthers a tortious act is jointly and severally liable with the prime tortfeasor.the infringing nature of the records. CAMI created the Port Washington audience as a market for those artists. and that it derived substantial financial benefit from the actions of the primary infringers.