Created by
spring 2021
Terms in this set (92)
Gracen makes painting of Dorothy from Oz (based on movie images) for Bradford, and then refuses to sign contract. Bradford uses painting anyway, arguing that it's a derivative work and thus you can't copyright.
Court rules in favor of Bradford(?): Derivative work must be substantially different from original work in order to copyright, and Gracen's images were very close to movie images
Court rules in favor of Bradford(?): Derivative work must be substantially different from original work in order to copyright, and Gracen's images were very close to movie images
Feist publication Inc v Rural TelephoneRural makes telephone book, Feist asks to copy and Rural says no. Feist copies anyway, Rural says, and Feist says facts aren't copyrightable
Court rules in favor of Feist: you can't copyright telephone books, as all info is in public domainBaker v SeldenSelden writes book about how to use a certain filing system, which Baker then copies and begins using it.
Court rules in favor of Baker: Cannot copy right idea, only expression of idea (you can copyright your book but not the ideas in your book).Apple Computer, Inc., v. Franklin Computer Corp.Franklin makes an operating system and uses alot of Apples program and operating system. Apple sues, Franklin argues that they can under merger doctrine
Court rules in favor of Apple: you can copyright (1) object codes (code in 1's & 0's) (2) programs embedded on ROM and (3) operating systems. (First generation of cases that firmly established copyright for computer programming)Mazer v. SteinMazer makes lamps with statues, Stein copies, court sues
Court rules that art aspects (statue) can be copyrighted, but not utilitarian part (lamps)Star Athletica-Cheerleading uniform case
-Artistic feature of a design of useful article is eligible for protection if feature:
-Can be perceived as 2 or 3 dimensional work of art separate from useful article and
-Would qualify as protectable pictorial, graphic or sculptural work on its own or in some other medium if imagined separately from the useful articleMillar v TaylorVery old english case, ruled that common law lasts forever and even when copyright expires, you still have common laws
Big win for English book publishes, means they got to keep controlling copyrights to worksWheaton v PetersCourt ruled that once you publish, you do not have common law protectionAmerican Visuals Corp. v. HollandAn attempt to lessen harshness of 1909 act.
Court ruled it is easier to get federal rights (publish less) than to get rid of common law rights (publish more)- essentially there's some overlapKing v. Mister Maestro, Inc.King gives a copy of his speech to press ahead of time, claims he did not intend for it to be published, only help with coverage.
Court rules in favor of King(?): considered limited publication, did not matter what he intended to doEstate of Martin Luther King Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc.Overturned King v Mister Maestro.
King's estate sued CBS over not paying royalties when showing speech, CBS argued when he gave the speech, counted as public performance, and thus entered public domain.
Court ruled in favor of King: did not count as public performanceAcademy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences v. Creative House Promotions, Inc.Academy gives out Oscars and didn't copyright statute, Creative House then makes copies.
Court rules in favor of Academy: limited publication with limited purposePublic Affairs Associates, Inc. v RickoverRickover said anyone who wrote to him could get a copy of the speech.
Court ruled in favor of Public Affairs: since Rickover sent to anyone who wanted one, it was a general publication and he could not get a copyrightCommunity for Creative-Non violence v. ReidHomeless shelter asked Reid to create sculpture mirroring Nativity scene, gave suggestions and direction, both filed copyright.
Court ruled in favor of shelter: said it fell under "work for hire" in 1976 actAvtec System v PeifferPeiffer created beta program for Avtec System, then created alpha version at home and sold to competitor. Avtec said it was "work for hire", Peiffer said it was outside scope of hire.
Court ruled in favor of Peiffer: said it was outside of scope of hireCramer v Crestar Fin. CorpOverturned Avtec v Peiffer- Cramer did work which Crestar claimed they owned.
Court ruled in favor of Crestar: Cramer did work WITHIN scope of employment, even though it was at home, outside of regular hours, and on his own equipmentChildress v TaylorChildress writes play about "Moms" Mabely, with help of Taylor, rejects Taylor's suggestions, puts on play without Taylor
Court rules in favor of Childress: there was no intent, and thus no joint authorshipAalmmuhammed v. LeeAalmmuhammed makes big contribution to Spike Lee movie
Court rules in favor of Lee: rules he is not join author because (1) No intent for him to be joint authors (2) Whoever owns origin owns workTasini v New York TimesNew York Times begins putting articles in online database, Tasini argues that this is copyright violation
Court rules in favor of Tasini: this IS copyright violation, because it is a separate exploitation, the "manner" in which the articles were presented to user were differentFaulkner v. National GeographicFaulkner sued National Geographic for breach of copyright, for releasing digital version of magazine.
Court rules in favor of National Geographic: Digital version looked EXACTLY the same as print, court said it was not copyright infringementPushman v NY Graphic SocietyPushman sold his work in 1940's, did not expressly say he wanted to maintain copyright. When painting sold again, he wanted copyright.
Court rules in favor of NY Graphic: work and copyright were two separate things.
Pushman doctrine: selling the material item does not count as selling copyright, unless work is unpublishedGarner v NikeCopyright owner must give permission for transfer of rights
Exclusive licensee does not have right to transfer rights without copyright owners consentEldred v AshcroftEldred sued over Sonny Bonno copyright term extension act, which extended copyright
Supreme court said it was fineDeSylva v. BallentineRenewal goes to author, then family, then estate
New language to mean widow or widower and childrenBarook v Boosey & Hawkes Inc.Bartok creates work and gives it to publishers
Then dies, publisher publishes it and gives renewal to son
Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra not considered a posthumous work?Epoch Producers v Killam Shows, Inc.Epoch renews work and sues Killam for using is
Court ruled in favor of Killam: work was in public domainFred Fisher Music Co. v M Witmark & SonsAssignment of renewal time is bindingMiller Music Corp v Charles V Daniels IncIf author is not alive when vesting happens, then rights go to successor
Limitation on Fred fisherStewart v AbendIf the author makes a contract they must be alive in the time of vesting or the contract doesn't matter
Vesting and renewals only important under 09 act because the 76 act doesn't have two terms (renewal = always 09)
*Supreme Court rejects new property right theory of derivative work. Assignment of renewal rights by author does not defeat right of author's statutory successors to those rights if author dies before renewal right vests.
Wolrich dies before he can renew his copyright so he couldn't give them the rights (Rear Window is a derivative work of his short story. Abend is given rights after Wolrich dies because he isn't alive during the time of vesting and sues Stewart/Hitchcock and
Supreme Court rules in favor of AbendCartoon Newtork LP v CSC holdingCable Vision offered a remote storage DVR (instead of your recording sitting on the box it sits remotely at the cable vision headquarters), Held it on RAM for 2 (1.2) seconds, it it doesn't get a command to record it goes away. Cartoon Network sues them for reproduction right
Court rules in favor of CSC: they are not infringing, not "fixated" and totally ignore that it goes onto CSC's serverMAI System Corp v Peak Computers, IncPeak would go out and fix computers, use the MAI software & diagnostics test to figure out what the problem was. MAI sues because they were loading their software into RAM
Court rules in favor of MAI: loading software into RAM=a type of fixation, qualifies as a copy (very criticized decision)Lewis Galoob Toys v Nintendo of America IncLewis creates Game geenie plugs that into Nintendo and might give your character more strength, nothing is saved, just temporary changes. Nintendo sues
Court rules in favor of Galoob: nothing saved, thus no fixation, no infringmentMicrostar v FormGen IncFormGen makes Duke Nukem (game) on CD, has a source art library that comes up during play/also has MAP files that give directions to the artwork for certain levels. Micro Star packaged a bunch of user generated MAP files and sold them for the game
Court rules in favor of FormGen: 9th circuit holds that a computer enhancement is an infringing derivative work
Opposite of GaloobMirage Editions v Albuquerque A.R.T coAlbuquerque cuts out photos/art from a book, pastes on ceramic tiles and sells those tiles, Mirage sues
Court rules in favor of Mirage: infringing because you need the book to create the ceramics and is infringing derivative work because the defendant's work supplanted demand for underlying workLee v. A.R.T coART co Bought postcards with original artwork and put it on ceramic tiles, Lee sues
Court rules in favor of ART co: not infringing, Not a derivative work because postcards not original
Goes against Mirage v. AlbuquerqueNewton v. DiamondBestie Boys sampling by Newton, only like 3 seconds or 3 notes
Court rules in favor of Diamond: not infringing because average audience member wouldn't notice
*Use of a portion of a composition requires no license if it is so meager and fragmentary that the average audience - ordinary observer - would not recognize the appropriationBridgeport Music v Dimension FilmsSimilar case to Newton v Diamond, a 3 note guitar riff lasting two seconds
Court rules sampling is infringing no matter how fragmentary your segment is, even if the sample was insufficiently discernible to constitute substantial similarityHottaling v Church of Latter Day SaintsHottaling collects research and gets copyright on collection, then sells a copy to Church, who then distributes it in their libraries. Hottaling sues
Court rules in favor of Hottaling: if you put something up on a website or in library you've made it available. Rejects traditional "distribution" idea in favor of a "made available" argumentCM Paula Co v LoganCM Paula buys greeting cards from Logan and sold them on ceramic plaques (different than tiles!)
Court rules in favor of ?: Neither reproduction nor adaptation right infringed when defendant disposed of greeting cardsRed Baron-Franklin Park v Taito CorpBaron-Franklin wants to bring Japanese video games made by Taito to US, Taito sues for infringement
Court rules in favor of Taito: Can't rent computer software (doesn't apply to libraries)Quality-King Distributors Inc L'Anza Research InternationalThe Supreme Court found that the copyright holder could not prevent re-importation of the products it had authorized for export from the United States.Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.The Supreme Court holds that the phrase "lawfully made under this title" does not mean copies lawfully made in the U.S., but applies to works made abroad if they have been imported with authority of the copyright holder.
Kirt was a grad student in US from taiwan, bought cheap books from abroad and resold them in US for profitColumbia Pictures Industries v Redd Home IncColumbia sued Redd (video rental company) over allowing customers to rent videos and play in private room in store, rather than taking it home.
Court rules in favor of Columbia- this was copyright infringement, as a private room in the store constituted as "public" areas.Buck v Jewell-LaSalle Realty CoJewell, a hotel, plays radio into individual hotel rooms, and Buck sues for copyright infringement
Supreme Court rules in favor of Buck- decides that this constitutes as multiple performances, holds hotel liable for broadcastingFortnightly Corp v United Artists Television, IncFortnightly broadcasts cable into individual hotel rooms
Court rules in favor of Fortnightly- reverses Buck v Jewell decision, says that the hotel is NOT liable for multiple broadcastsTeleprompter Corp v Columbia Broadcast System (CBS)Another reversal of Buck v Jewell
Court rules in favor of Teleprompter- cable tv is a viewer function, and is not performingTwentieth Century Music Corp v AikenAiken has a very small food mart, and puts 4 speakers out to play radio, after which twentieth century sues for Aiken for not having license
Court rules in favor of Aiken- Aiken's store is too small to require a license, and he can't be held liable because they can't know everyone who is rebroadcasting.
Multiple performances doctrine is sometimes known as the Aiken doctrine.Sailor Music v Gap StoresGap plays music in their stores over very advanced sound system, and Sailor music sues for copyright infringement
Court rules in favor of Sailor-Gap is large and wealthy enough to pay fee, and does not grant Aiken exemption
Focus seems to be less on square footage and more on quality of sound systemSpringsteen v Plaza Roller DomeSpringsteen sues small putt-putt place, who broadcasts their music on a poor sound system over a very small area (~600 square feet)
Court rules in favor of Plaza- Aiken exemption, says sound quality is low and hard to hear music over outside noiseUnited States v ASCAPYahoo and RealNetwork bought blanket license from ASCAP, who argues that each download counts as a performance, thus making the royalty fee higher.
Court rules in favor of US- that a digital download is not a performance, as you would have to be listening to it while it downloadsPerfect 10, Inc. v Google, IncPerfect 10 is a website with nude models, when one google they can see thumbnails from website. Perfect 10 argues that this is copyright infringement of their images
Court rules in favor of Google- that Google is not storing the information or transmitting, so they are not infringingRecording Industry of Ass'n of America v Diamond Multimedia Systems, IncRIAA sues Diamond, saying Diamond's Rio was an audio recording device, and thus should pay royalties when playing music
Court rules in favor of Diamond- computers are not a digital recording deviceUniversal City Studios, Inc v CorleyCorley posted information on his website called DeCSS that explained how to get around encryption on DVD's, Universal City Studios sues claiming it was copyright violation
Court rules in favor of Corley- was content neutral, and people could use coding to make fair use videoChamberlain Group, Inc v Skylink Technologies, IncChamberlain makes garage doors and remotes, Skylink creates universal remote that circumvents this, Chamberlain sues for copyright infringement
Court rules in favor of Skylink- there is no infringement, it's a garage doorLexmark Int'l v Static Control Components, IncLexmark puts chip in printer ink that prevents anyone but Lexmark from refilling the ink, and static finds a way around this
Court rules in favor of Static- getting around the chip was not actionableBright Tunes Music Corp v Harrisongs Music, LtdBright Tunes has popular song on radio, Harrisongs has similar song, so Bright Tunes sues saying Harrisongs copied, though Harrisongs claims that they never heard the song,.
Court rules in favor of Bright Tunes- song was popular enough that Harrisongs could have heard and accidentally infringed (he had plenty of access to it)Selle v GibbSelle writes song called "Let it End" which played only in Chicago. Later, the BG wrote a song called "How Deep is Your Love" that sounds very similar. Selle sued in court.
Court rules in favor of Gibb- there was no access- BG was in France and could not have heard the song.Nichols v Universal Pictures CorpNichols made a play about a Jewish and Irish catholic marrying, Universal makes a similar movies, and Nichols sues for infringement.
Court rules in favor of Universal- there is no infringement, as the story was stock characters and ideas
Case brings up articulation test: ideas versus expression of ideasWhelan Associates, Inc. v Jaslow Dental Laboratory, IncJaslow makes dental computer program based on Whelan Associates, Whelan sues
Court rules in favor of Whelan- there was copyright infringement, as Jaslow copied structure, sequence, and organization of programComputer Associates v Altai, IncEngineers leave Altai for computer Associates and takes code with them, and then re-writes it. Altai sues for infringement
Court rules in favor of Computer Associates - uses abstraction, filtration, comparison test (filter out everything allowed under copyright and compare what is left) and finds no infringementArnstein v PorterArnstein sues Porter for music infringement
Court rules in favor of???? Court uses 2 step approach: did copying happen? If yes, was it enough to be considered infringing?
Apparently court recommended that case go to jury? Don't effing knowSid & Marty Krofft Television Prods, Inc. v McDonald's CorpKrofft Television claimed that McDonald's stole from there puppet TV show for McDonald's commercials.
Court rules in favor of Krofft. Court modifies Arnstein test for a new version: 1. Compare work for similarity of ideas. 2. Court act as ordinary observer to determine if defendant took enough for them to be held liable
Found that McDonald's has infringed, had to pay fee to KrofftsElektra Records Co v Gem Electronic Distributions, IncGem sold music and blank tape, knowing people would infringe.
Court rules in favor of Elektra (?) - when defendant has less knowledge of infringement, they are less responsible. Gem still considered a contributory infringerPerfect 10 Inc v. VISA Int'l Service AssocPeople used VISA's to purchase infringing materials online
Court rules in favor of VISA- credit card companies are not responsibleSony Corp v Universal City Studios, IncSony creates Betamax, which allows you to record things. Some people chose to do this by copying shows, which Sony knew was possible.
Court rules in favor of Sony- created Sony Doctrine: if you could prove there were substantial uses of the product that were not infringing, then you could not sue for copyright. Sony wonA & M Rcords v NapsterNapster created software that allowed you to download music for free, and had central index to know which was copyrighted and which was not.
Court rules in favor of A&M- Central index meant Napster knew what was infringing: court ruled them contributory infringementIn re Aimster Copyright LitigationCourt used revised "Sony" test
Have to show what non-infringing abilities product has, then to cost/benefit analysis to figure out cost of removing infringing material
Aimster showed no evidence of noninfringing ways technology could be usedMetro-Goldwin-Mayer Studios Inc v Grokster, LtdGrokster and Streamcast, file sharing service, allowed customers to share copyrighted files
Court rules in favor of no one. Supreme Court said that companies could be sued if their business model encouraged customers to break laws, but did not make a firm decision, instead giving the case back to the 9th circuitFonovisa Inc v Cherry Auction, IncCherry auction, flea market owner, knows that customers are selling copyrighted items, doesn't stop it, and profited off of sales
Court rules in favor of Fonovisa- says Cherry Auction is vicariously liable, since they knew and did not stopLenz v Univseral MusicLenz posts video of her son dancing to Prince song, Universal sends take down notice to YouTube, Lenz sues because she says song is in Fair use
Still on going, no decisionIn re Verizon Internet Services, IncRIAA wants Verizon to give them information about who is peer sharing illegal content, Verizon refuses and says they can't without supeno
Court rules in favor of VerizonFolsom v MarshFolsom writes 700 page biography about Washington, Marsh steals around 300 pages, including some of Washington's original letters, claims fair use
Court rules in favor of Folsom- Justice story finds infringement, and lays out criteria for fair useHustler Magazine Inc v Moral MajorityHustler makes satire of Falwell- Falwell then distributes that to promote support of himself.
Court rules in favor of Moral Majority- though this is copied verbatim, the use was fine because it was used as a defenseHarper & Row Publishers, Inc. v Nation EnterprisesFord writes and autobiography about why he pardoned Nixon, gives small excerpt for NYT to publishes, and then The Nation publishes excerpt first. Harper & Row sues.
Court rules in favor Harper & Row- Supreme Court rules that because book was unpublished, excerpt was not fair useKelly v Arriba Soft CorpKelly has photos on a website, and Arriba, a search engine, uses thumbnails on their results page. Kelly sues for infringement.
Court rules in favor of Arriba- that it's fair use to display small images on search page, because it does not supersede the need for the full size imageEncyclopedia Britannica Educational Corp v CrooksCrook copies Britannica films and distributes them to schools, claims it is not infringing because of education fair use.
Court rules in favor of Britannica- that it is not fair use, because it harms the britannica market (no one was buying from them anymore)Princeton University Press v Michigan Document ServiceMichigan copies Princeton course pack, Michigan claims it's fair use because it's for education.
Court rules in favor of Princeton- that MDS is not a non-profit, it was creative material, and alot was copied, so they cannot claim fair use.Sega Enterprises Ltd. v AccoladeAccolade buys Sega games to reverse engineer games for the Sega system.
Court rules in favor of Accolade- says that it is no usurping the market, and that copying was productive in nature and not much of the actual system was copied.Campbell v Acuff-RoseCampbell makes parody of Acuff-Rose song without permissions
Court rules in favor of Campbell-parody MAY count as fair use. The more transformative the more it counts as fair use.Chaplinsky v New HampshireChaplinsky shouted insults at the town marshal, claimed he had free speech
SC rules in favor of New Hampshire: uses "fighting words doctrine" that limits free speechNear v MinnesotaNear began publishing generally shitty, libaleous articles, and Minnesota tried to impose censorship
SC rules censorship is unconstitutional, rejected prior restraintNY Times v United StatesNY Times wants to publish classified Pentagon Papers, United States try to sue so they can't
SC rules in favor of NY Times: they printed Pentagon papersUS v O'BrienO'Brien burns draft card publicly, gets arrested, claims it was free speech
SC rules in favor of US: prohibiting burning of draft card does not violate free speech
Sets found in the same folder
SMAD 330 Test #2
92 terms
SMAD 330 Test 1
47 termsImages
smad 330 test 1 hinshaw
128 terms
smad 330 test 3 hinshaw
129 terms
Other Quizlet sets
Chapter 18 Check points
34 terms
1/3