Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

There were two major cases recently. This one on Thursday by the US Supreme Court, and one in March where four major publishers got a dimmary judgement against Internet Archives and the Wayback Machine for copyright infringement.

These two court decisions could transform the "Fair Use" laws relating to internet posting and publishing.

Here are links to the two court opinions.

Copy of lawsuit filed against Internet Archives

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/6935704/4388-1.pdf

Court Opinion and Order

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900/gov.uscourts.nysd.537900.188.0.pdf

CONCLUSION: The Court has considered all of the parties' arguments. To the extent not specifically addressed above, the arguments are either moot or without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is granted and the defendants' motion for summary judgment is denied. The parties should submit their respective proposals (or preferably a joint proposal) for the appropriate procedure to determine the judgment to be entered in this case.

"U.S. District Court Judge John G. Koeltl agreed with the plaintiffs, saying that the Internet Archive was making “derivative” works by turning print books into e-books and distributing them. It no longer has the right to do so."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf

Warhol had purchased the copyright from a magazine who published the original photo. Ends up, they did not own the copyright.

1 posted on 05/21/2023 5:11:40 AM PDT by tired&retired
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: tired&retired

Before you look up “dimmery judgment “ it is a typo. It was to say “Summary Judgment. “

🤭


2 posted on 05/21/2023 5:14:31 AM PDT by tired&retired (Blessings )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tired&retired

[[Warhol had purchased the copyright from a magazine who published the original photo. Ends up, they did not own the copyright]]

Kind of akin to someone purchasing a stolen care with a title that wasn’t theirs.


5 posted on 05/21/2023 6:01:03 AM PDT by Bob434 (question )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tired&retired

The majority ruled that the magazine might well have chosen Goldstein’s work itself for the same purpose and that is the ONLY reason Warhol’s work amounted to copyright infringement.

I have certain problems with copyright law, chiefly in the outrageous lengths of copyright. But this seems absolutely central to the very purpose of copyright. Had Warhol not used Goldstein’s work without compensation, Goldstein’s own work might have been used for the same purpose. This is not copyright stifling creativity!


6 posted on 05/21/2023 6:02:26 AM PDT by dangus ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tired&retired

This could have ramifications on the Fair Use statutes that allows us to post articles here on FR.


9 posted on 05/21/2023 8:17:22 AM PDT by tired&retired (Blessings )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson