Original news and analysis on international IP policy
Infojustice.org: Google Books And Feist-y Fair Use
From infojustice.org: Judge Pierre Levalβs opinion [on 16 October] in the Google Books case offers another fascinating glimpse into the richness of his thinking about the concept of fair use. Although the outcome in Google Books (Google wins, duh) was obvious to anyone whose paycheck didnβt depend on their believing otherwise, the discussion that gets us there sheds light on a host of hot fair use topics in ways that courts and copyright wonks will be citing and unpacking for years to come.
From infojustice.org (posted by Brandon Butler): Judge Pierre Levalβs opinion today [16 October] in the Google Books case offers another fascinating glimpse into the richness of his thinking about the concept of fair use. (For more, be sure to attend (or stream) his talk at WCLβs Fourth Annual Peter Jaszi Lecture on November 12.) A law review article by then-district court Judge Leval was the source of the now-dominant theory of fair use, grounded in a concept he called βtransformative use,β an idea later adopted wholesale by the Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose and spread throughout the land in subsequent cases.
Although the outcome in Google Books (Google wins, duh) was obvious to anyone whose paycheck didnβt depend on their believing otherwise, the discussion that gets us there sheds light on a host of hot fair use topics in ways that courts and copyright wonks will be citing and unpacking for years to come. In a later post Iβd like to explore the ways Judge Leval managed to weigh in on a remarkable number of fair use controversies over the course of a single opinion.
For now, though, rather than take a grand tour of all the nooks and crannies of the opinion, in this post I want to make my first foray into the text by highlighting one big idea that I think is woven throughout the fabric of the opinion in a fundamental way: the distinction between protected expression and unprotected facts.
Counselor Butler notes in his article: The Authors Guild has already announced its intention to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. It is hardly certain that the Court will take the case …
Kevin Smith, J..D. of Duke University has said: (Finally,) we should note that the Authors Guild has already indicated its intention to ask the Supreme Court to review this decision. This is a very bad idea, indicating that the AG simply does not know when to cut its losses and stop wasting the money provided by its members.β
According to its IRS 990 for year ending 30 SEP 2014, Part IX item 11b, The Authors Guild had βoutside legal serviceβ expenses of $0. So maybe it would be wasting money of persons or entities other than from their Members who are underwriting those expenses should the AG appeal to the Supreme Court. Whether the US Supreme Court would take on the case or not, The Authors Guild has the right to submit their appeal to the Court should they believe the have a reasonable basis to do so.
Counselor Butler notes in his article: The Authors Guild has already announced its intention to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. It is hardly certain that the Court will take the case …
Kevin Smith, J..D. of Duke University has said: (Finally,) we should note that the Authors Guild has already indicated its intention to ask the Supreme Court to review this decision. This is a very bad idea, indicating that the AG simply does not know when to cut its losses and stop wasting the money provided by its members.β
According to its IRS 990 for year ending 30 SEP 2014, Part IX item 11b, The Authors Guild had βoutside legal serviceβ expenses of $0. So maybe it would be wasting money of persons or entities other than from their Members who are underwriting those expenses should the AG appeal to the Supreme Court. Whether the US Supreme Court would take on the case or not, The Authors Guild has the right to submit their appeal to the Court should they believe the have a reasonable basis to do so.
[…] A fenti ΓtΓ©let, mΓ©g egyszer, nem jelent meglepetΓ©st. Γvekkel ezelΕtt is azt mondtam, hogy a kΓΆzponti kΓ©rdΓ©s, hogy a digitalizΓ‘lΓ‘st Γ©s tartalmΓ‘ban korlΓ‘tozott internetes lehΓvΓ‘sra hozzΓ‘fΓ©rhetΕvΓ© tΓ©telt a bΓrΓ³sΓ‘gok transzformatΓvnak tartjΓ‘k-e. E kΓΆrΓΌlmΓ©ny ugyanis gyakorlatilag eldΓΆnti az ΓΌgy kimenetelΓ©t. Ezzel egyΓΌtt fontos hatΓ‘sai lehetnek az amerikai fair use vilΓ‘gΓ‘ra a fent elmondottak. A bΓrΓ³sΓ‘g tΓΆbbek kΓΆzΓΆtt megerΕsΓtette, hogy a transzformΓ‘ciΓ³ dominΓ‘nsabb, mint a (kΓΆzvetlen) haszonszerzΓ©si cΓ©lok jelenlΓ©te. Tette azonban mindezt ΓΊgy, hogy precedenskΓ©nt idΓ©zte a Cariou v. Prince ΓΌgyet, amelynek keretΓ©ben az alperes mΕ±vΓ©sz csekΓ©ly mennyisΓ©gΕ± mΓ³dosΓtΓ‘s (egy kΓΆzΓΆssΓ©gi portΓ‘lon elhelyezett fotΓ³ alΓ‘ felirat elhelyezΓ©sΓ©vel) dobta piacra megdΓΆbbentΕen magas Γ‘ron mΓ‘s szemΓ©lyek fotΓ³it. Abban az ΓΌgyben tehΓ‘t kΓΆzvetlen haszonszerzΓ©si cΓ©lokrΓ³l, Γ©s csekΓ©ly mennyisΓ©gΕ± Γ‘talakΓtΓ³ tevΓ©kenysΓ©grΕl beszΓ©lhetΓΌnk. E kΓ©t ΓtΓ©let egybeolvasva az elsΕ faktor Γ©rtΓ©kelΓ©se erΕteljesen hΓ‘trΓ‘nyos irΓ‘nyba mozdult el a szerzΕi jogosultak szempontjΓ‘bΓ³l. (A Google Books Γ©s a Prince ΓΌgy ΓΆsszeolvasΓ‘sΓ‘t lΓ‘sd itt.) Γs bΓ‘r minden tiszteletem Leval bΓrΓ³Γ©kΓ©, a mΓ‘sodik faktornΓ‘l kifejtett leheletnyi kritikΓ‘mat fenntartom, akΓ‘rcsak azt is, hogy a negyedik faktort a tanΓ‘cs talΓ‘n tΓΊlzottan is nagyvonalΓΊan kezelte, alig egy oldalban jΓ‘rta kΓΆrbe, bΓ‘r inkΓ‘bb kerΓΌlte ki a tΓ©mΓ‘t. Ezzel egyΓΌtt sem tartom valΓ³szΓnΕ±nek, hogy az azΓ³ta a LegfelsΕbb BΓrΓ³sΓ‘ghoz beadott writ of certiorari (vagyis az ΓΌgy befogadΓ‘sa irΓ‘nti kΓ©relem) elfogadΓ‘sra kerΓΌlne. Sokkal inkΓ‘bb hiszem azt, hogy itt most vΓ©getΓ©r ez az ΓΌgy. Aki az ΓtΓ©letrΕl tovΓ‘bbi elemzΓ©sekre kΓvΓ‘ncsi, lΓ‘togasson el a felperes Authors Guild oldalΓ‘ra, avagy az IP Watch blogra. […]