Cases

Aalmuhammed v. Lee, 202 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2000)
This case deals with the concept of joint ownership of copyright. Aalmuhammed served as a technical consultant to Spike Lee during the filming of Malcolm X. Aalmuhammed made numerous contributions to the film, including rewriting several sections of the script, and later claimed that he was a co-author of the movie. The court ruled against Aalmuhammed, finding that his contribution did not constitute co-authorship.

American Geophysical Union v. Texaco 60 F.3d 914 (2nd Cir. 1994)
This case addresses the concept of fair use in a for-profit environment. A scientist employed by Texaco photocopied articles from journals that were routed to him from the corporate library. The court ruled against Texaco, finding that the copying was not fair use.

Basic Books Inc. v. Kinko’s Graphics Corp. 758 F.Sup. 1522 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
This case deals with the exemptions for fair use and educational photocopying. Kinko’s was printing and selling course packs; the publishers sued for copyright infringement. The courts ruled against Kinko’s, finding that neither the exemption for fair use nor the exemption for classroom photocopying applied.

Bridgeman Art Lib. v. Corel 36 F.Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 1999)
In Bridgeman, the court addressed the question of what constitutes sufficient originality and/or creativity to qualify for copyright protection. The materials in question were photographs of two-dimensional art works (which were themselves in the public domain). The court ruled that the photographs, which were exact reproductions of the art works, lacked the requisite originality to qualify for copyright protection.

Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music 510 U.S. 569 (1994)
This case deals with the rap group 2 Live Crew’s song “Pretty Woman” which is a parody of Roy Orbison’s “Oh, Pretty Woman” and contains substantial portions of the original work. Acuff-Rose Music, the copyright holder for Orbison’s song, sued the group and their record company for copyright infringement. The court held that 2 Live Crew’s use of the original was a fair use.

CDN, Inc. v. Kapes 197 F.3d 1256 (9th Cir. 1999)
This is another case dealing with the question of how much creativity/originality is required for copyright protection. Generally, facts can not be protected by copyright. However, in this case, the court held that the “facts” in question (CDN’s prices for collectible coins) were copyrightable because they were not mere list prices or selling prices, but were instead CDN’s best estimate of fair value based on their analysis of the rare coin market.

Columbia Pictures Industries v. Redd Horne, Inc. 749 F.2d 154 (3d Cir. 1984)
This case involves the question of public performance rights. The defendant operated a business in which he rented both videocassettes and rooms in which to view them. The plaintiff claimed that this violated plaintiff’s right to authorize public performances of the works. The court held for the plaintiff finding that the viewings in question were public performances.

Encyclopedia Britannica v. Crooks 58 F.Sup. 1247
This case deals with off-air videotaping of television programs. The defendant systematically taped educational programs, copied them, and distributed them to teachers for use in a classroom setting. The programs taped were readily available for rent or purchase. The court held for the plaintiff, finding that under these circumstances (systematic taping, copying and distributing without any limits, indefinite retention, and ready commercial availability), the use was not fair.

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Company 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
In Feist, the courts addressed the question of the originality required for copyright protection again. Feist used Rural’s white pages listing as part of the basis for its own directory, and Rural sued for infringement. The court held that the facts in question were not themselves copyrightable and that the compilation, in this case an alphabetical listing, was not sufficiently original to justify protection as a compilation.

New York Times v. Tasini
In the Tasini case, a group of freelance authors claimed that three publishers had infringed on their copyright by making their articles available electronically through electronic databases without their permission. The Court held in favor of the authors.

Playboy v. Frena 839 F.Sup. 352 (1993)
In this case, the defendant operated a computer bulletin board through which he sold unauthorized copies of photographs from Playboy. Playboy Enterprises sued for copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition. The courts found that the defendant had violated Playboy’s right to reproduction and display of the photographs. Furthermore, they found that this use could not be considered fair. The court also found against Frena on the charges of trademark infringement and unfair competiton.

Salinger v. Random House 811 F.2d 90 (2nd Cir. 1987)
This case deals with copyright protection for unpublished works. Ian Hamilton wrote a biography of J.D. Salinger incorporating many of his unpublished letters. Salinger had not given permission for the use of his letters, and had, in fact, refused to cooperate with Hamilton on the book project. Salinger sued for copyright infringement. The courts found in favor Salinger, saying that the letters were protected by copyright and that the use of them made by Hamilton was not covered by the fair use exemption.

Sony v. Universal 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
The Sony case deals with the concept of contributory (or third-party) liability. Various producers of broadcast television programs sued Sony, the manufacturer of the Betamax videotape recorder, for copyright infringement on the grounds that that the machines enabled their owners to commit copyright infringement. The court found that Sony was not guilty of contributory infringement because the machines were also capable of substantial non-infringing uses. The major non-infringing use noted by the court was taping programs for later viewing, a practice which, in a non-commercial environment, falls within the scope of fair use.