Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Second Circuit Illuminates Google Books Fair Use Issues
Based on the defense of fair use, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Google in the decade-long copyright battle between an authors group and the Internet search giant. The lawsuit concerned Google's right to copy millions of books in order to allow snippet searches and text/data mining of the works. Making digital copies “to provide a search function is a transformative use,” the panel held, “which augments public knowledge by making available information about Plaintiffs' books without providing the public with a substantial substitute for matter protected by the Plaintiffs' copyright '.” Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015).
To many legal observers, the outcome seemed obvious in light of the limited uses to which Google sought to affix the imprimatur of fair use. But the opinion takes a number of original turns in reaching this conclusion. Judge Pierre N. Leval, the author, is the same Judge Leval who, 25 years earlier, wrote the seminal copyright article on which rested the Supreme Court's “transformative fair use” analysis in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, 510 U.S. 569 (1994).
In Acuff-Rose, the High Court considered whether the rap music group 2 Live Crew had infringed the copyright in the song “Pretty Woman” by copying the melody and much of the lyrics for their parodic version of the Roy Orbison hit. Relying heavily on Judge Leval's 1990 law review piece, “Toward a Fair Use Standard,” the Supreme Court adopted Leval's concept of “transformativeness” and ruled that the defendants' use was fair. See, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105 (1990).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?