Monday, 4/18
798-809, 811-15, 825-31
To understand Stewart v. Abend,
read Part I of 176-77, as
instructed.
Sections 502-05
Next Week
160-76, 183-87
Wednesday, 4/20
Sections 202, 203, 302-03
Skim Section 304(a)-(d)
Review Sessions
Double Session, Saturday, April
23rd, 1 - 3:30pm
Six hours, word-limited
Administered via email. You
can/should work from home
Administrative
Format / Timing
On-site exams possible but
discouargerd
Any printed matter
Materials you may consult
Class 24: Copyright
Litigation Issues
You will submit a file (most likely
PDF or MS Word) via email to
Cindy
Any electronic documents stored
on your local computer's hard drive
Any materials hosted on our class website
Statutes on Cornell's LII website
Final Exam policies
No other Internet-hosted materials
Posted online
Past Exams
Save Spring 2010 Copyright exam
(listed first) for later review and
discussion at review session
Please send me questions for first
review session
Question/Answer policies
I will post Q&A for some questions
on new class blog
Question cut-off time: 24 hours before exam
News Wednesdays
24.mmap - 4/14/2011 -
83 Publishers of scientific journals
sue Texaco for copyright
infringement of articles by
photocopying.
Texaco's 400-500 scientists
Facts
Odd Procedural approach: Pick
one lucky scientist at random
(Chickering) and dig through his
files.
Texaco routes journals to
scientists with an interest.
Chickering photocopied eight files
on own or with other employees'
assistance.
American Geophysical Union v. Texaco
Facilitate current or future
professional research.
No immediate use -- placed in his files.
Held
1. Purpose and character of use.
2. Nature of Copyrighted Work
Reasoning
Last Time
3. Amount and Substantiality of
Portion Used
4. Effect upon potential market or value.
Copyshop in college town (UMich)
Class 24: Copyright
Litigation Issues
Professors give master
"coursepacks" to shop
Copyshop sells copies to students
Facts
Princeton U. Press v. Michigan
Document Svcs
No royalties paid to copyright
owners, and no royalties passed
along to students.
Plaintiffs were publishers that each
had departments that could
process requests for permission to
republish in coursepacks
District Court: No Fair Use
En banc CA6 Held
Reasoning
24.mmap - 4/14/2011 -
Finds websites that have quoted in
whole or substantial part photos
and articles originally appearing in
newspapers
Las Vegas Review-Journal
Tries to find newspapers willing to
assign rights to sue to it.
So far
Denver Post
San Jose Mercury News
WEHCO Media in Arkansas
The publisher of the LV R-J now
owns 50% of Righthaven
205 Cases have been filed
From Wikipedia entry
Typical demand
$75k or $150k
Surrender of the domain name
Does not send C&D first.
Who
CEO: Steven Gibson
Dickinson Wright PLLC
Some: "Copyright Troll"
Last Time
Righthaven
The Righthaven "Business Model"
Class 24: Copyright
Litigation Issues
"Fair use of our content restricts
those who want to reference it to
reproduce no more than a headline
and up to a couple of paragraphs
or a summary of the story."
Denver Post photo
Interesting disclaimer on Denver Post's site
Online sports-betting content
Latest (Saturday)
24.mmap - 4/14/2011 -
Partnered with site that sells sports
handicapping info and analysis by
various authors
"The fair use rule generally does
not entitle users to display the
whole story or photograph on their
website. To do so is a violation of
our copyright and we will use all
legal remedies available to
address those infringements."
D: The Center for Intercultural
Organizing of Portland
Reproduced 33 paragraph story
from Las Vegas R-J about
immigrants' relationship with LV
police
Credited newspaper
Held: No Fair Use
Last Time
Righthaven
Fair Use?
(According to news story. No opinion yet)
Dist. Oregon, March 18
1: Educational purpose. No profit.
Reasoning
Class 24: Copyright
Litigation Issues
24.mmap - 4/14/2011 -
2: Factual.
4: No harm to the market for the story
Also: No notice-and-takedown.
"The market served is not P's market"
Section 411
No lawsuit until registration!
The Registration Requirement
Review from Formalities class.
Registration is still relevant
Potential to lose statutory damages
And fees
Can record with Customs to get
assistance at the Border
Timing
Putative class action involving
freelancers suing owners of online
databases for republishing their
articles.
Filing Too Early
Settlement
Ten members of the class objected the settlement
Class 24: Copyright
Litigation Issues
Muchnick
Facts
Held
24.mmap - 4/14/2011 -
CA2 raised issue on appeal: if the
registration requirement is a
jurisdictional requirement, we have
no jurisdiction over this settlement
Section 411 does not create a
jurisdictional requirement
Some had not registered their works
Answer: No jurisdiction
Constistent with unanimous
holdings from other circuits (FN2)
Section 507 (unassigned)
Criminal: 5 years
Civil: 3 years
P alleged that D took idea for
screenplay and produced a movie
August 1987, D screens allegedly
infringing movie for P
Timing
Filing Too Late
Statute of Limitations
1988: D's insurance carrier rejects claim
Roley
Facts
Timing milestones
1988: Shown in theaters. Flopped
1988: Shown on TV
1992: Shown on TV
Class 24: Copyright
Litigation Issues
1994: Available for rental
February 1991: Suit filed
Held
24.mmap - 4/14/2011 -
P alleges infringement after screening
Section 501 (unassigned)
Note 3: Agents
Even ones allowed to find
licensees for the work (Note 3)
Note 4: Those holding reversionary
interests in Termination of Transfer
Rule
In that case, phrase "exclusive
license" was used in K
Lack standing
Recent CA7 case: Nonexclusive licensees
But CA7 looked past verbiage and
decided that so many rights were
retained in licensor, grant
amounted to merely a
nonexclusive license
“It is the substance of the
agreement, not the labels that it
uses, that controls our analysis.”
Especially term that Licensor
retained right to renegotiate the
license
HyperQuest, Inc. v. N’Site
Solutions, Inc., 2011 WL 148803
(7th Cir. Jan. 19, 2011)
Paddington Bear
Proper Plaintiffs (Infringement)
1975: Eden Toys contracts with
owners of copyright in Paddington
Bear
Proper Parties
Class 24: Copyright
Litigation Issues
Eden Toys
Facts
Before 1979: Informal
understanding with licensors that
Eden given rights to anything
except books, records, movies.
1980: Informal understanding
memorialized with new K
11/79: Eden discovers D is selling
Paddington nightshirts
Eden sues D
D responds that Eden doesn't
have rights to sue for
infringements of adult clothing
Held
Proper Plaintiffs (Declaratory Judgment)
The basics
Sovereign Immunity
24.mmap - 4/14/2011 -
The CRCA
Limited to North America
Produce, sell, and sublicense
Initially limited to long (but not
complete) list of products, FN2
NOT including Adult clothing