The US Supreme Court will decide when to award attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party under the Copyright Act Law (Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., US No. 15-374).
In 1997, Thailand native, Supap Kirtsaeng, came to the United States to study mathematics at Cornell University. He discovered that textbooks published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. were considerably more expensive to buy in the United States than in his home country. Kirtsaeng asked his friends and relatives in Thailand to buy these books there and ship them to him, which he then sold in the U.S. on eBay at a profit.
In 2008, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. sued Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement, arguing that textbooks made outside of the United States are only licensed for sale exclusively abroad. Wiley won the case in the lower courts, Kirtsaeng appealed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court upheld the ban on importation of copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright owner.
Kirtsaeng then appealed to the US Supreme Court, arguing that books legally bought by his friends, and the first-sale doctrine should allow him to resell those books in the US. Kirtsaeng argued that the first-sale right of the buyer was more important than the copyright owner’s rights to control importation.
In 2013, The Supreme Court decided that the first-sale doctrine applies to copyrighted goods manufactured outside of the U.S., and the protections and exceptions offered by the Copyright Act to works “lawfully made under this title” is not limited by geography. The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit’s decision, held that Kirtsaeng’s sale of lawfully-made and purchased books was protected by the first-sale doctrine, and the case went back to the district court for retrial.
Kirtsaeng then won the case in district court and sought an award of attorneys’ fees
However, the district court decided that it has discretion to award attorney’s fees. Because Wiley’s suit was not “frivolous” or “objectively unreasonable,” the district court held that awarding Kirtsaeng attorney’s fees would “not promote the purposes of the Copyright Act.” The Second Circuit affirmed the decision. The Second Circuit placed “substantial weight” on the whether the losing party’s claim or defense was objectively unreasonable, i.e. whether the losing party’s claim was clearly without merit or devoid of legal or factual basis.
The case went to the Supreme Court again because there is great diversity in awarding attorney fees in the many Appeals Circuits. Those standards range from a presumption in favor of fee awards (Fifth and Seventh Circuits) to a presumption against fee awards when the losing party’s claims or defenses were not objectively unreasonable (Second Circuit).
This case was recently argued before the Supreme Court in April 2016. It remains interesting to see the Court decision
Tag: Copyright related
Digital Copyright Owners Must Consider Fair Use Before Sending Out A Takedown Notice 版权所有人在送出停止使用通知前需要考虑用户合理使用的权利
Digital Copyright Owners Must Consider Fair Use Before Sending Out A Takedown Notice 版权所有人在送出停止使用通知前需要考虑用户合理使用的权利
On February 7, 2007, Lenz uploaded to YouTube a 29-second home video of her two young children in the family kitchen dancing to the song Let’s Go Crazy by Prince. Universal was Prince’s publishing administrator responsible for enforcing his copyrights. Universal’s legal department searched YouTube for Prince’s songs and reviewed the video postings. They determined that the YouTube video posting “embodied a Prince composition” by making “significant use of . . . the composition.” Universal sent YouTube a takedown notification. The notice included a “good faith belief” statement as required by 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(3)(A)(v) (Digital Millennium Copyright Act “DMCA”): “We have a good faith belief that the above-described activity is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.”
After receiving the takedown notification, YouTube removed the video and sent Lenz an email on June 5, 2007, notifying her of the removal. Lenz then sent a counter-notification to YouTube pursuant to § 512(g)(3), attempting to restore the video. Universal’s protest reiterated that the video constituted infringement because there was no record that “either she or YouTube were ever granted licenses to reproduce, distribute, publicly perform or otherwise exploit the Composition.” The protest made no mention of fair use.
Lenz filed her lawsuit against Universal on April 18, 2008, alleging misrepresentation under § 512(f). The district court denied Universal’s motion to dismiss the action. Universal appealed, and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court.
A question of whether copyright holders have been abusing the extrajudicial takedown procedures provided for in the DMCA by declining to first evaluate whether the content qualifies as fair use. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 9/14/2015 opinion holds that statute requires copyright holders to consider fair use before sending a takedown notification, and that failure to do so raises a triable issue as to whether the copyright holder formed a subjective good faith belief that the use was not authorized by law.
Copyright owners and their representatives should have a written DCMA protocol/checklist. This should include an express requirement that fair use be considered with a check off that fair use was indeed considered and rejected. This evidence should assist in defending against a misrepresentation claim in connection with a takedown notice.
2007年2月7日Lenz 将29秒家庭录像上传到YouTube，录像中她的两个年幼孩子在家厨房合着“让我们去疯狂”歌曲跳舞。“让我们去疯狂”是Prince有版权的歌，Universal 管理他的版权。环球公司的法律部门在YouTube上搜索到了Lenz 的家庭录像，确定该家庭录像明显使用了Prince的歌，于是向YouTube网站发了删除通知。该通知包含一个声明在17 USC512 （数码千年版权法案 “DMCA”）下：“我们有充分的理由相信，上述活动是未经版权拥有者，其代理人，或法律，授权“。
接到删除通知后，YouTube删除了视频，并通知Lenz。Lenz然后送反通知到YouTube，说据第512（g）要求恢复视频。环球公司接着发出第二封抗议信，重申视频构成侵权，因为没有记录证明“无论她或YouTube曾经被授予许可。” 抗议信没有提及的是否考虑过用户的合理使用权的问题。
Lenz于2008年4月18日提起诉讼，指控环球公司的删除通知有不实陈述，环球公司动议法院驳回诉讼。地区法院拒绝了环球公司的要求。环球公司上诉，第九巡回上诉法院在2015年9月14日的裁决意见中，同意地方法院。
该案件涉及版权人如果未事先评估用户是否符合合理使用即发出删除通知，是否滥用权力。第九巡回上诉法院2015年9月14日的意见认为，“DMCA”法令要求版权持有人在发送删除通知之前要考虑合理使用，而且如果没这样做，可以引起诉讼。
版权拥有者和他们的代理应该有一个书面DCMA清单，审查合理使用问题， 并在删除通知中明确告知，已经考虑合理使用。该证据应帮助抵御失实陈述诉讼。