skip to main content
Idioma:

RIFF ON THE SUPREME COURT'S COPYRIGHT CASES COMPARED TO ITS PATENT CASES

Samuelson, Pamela

Boston University law review, 2024-04, Vol.104 (3), p.965-987 [Periódico revisado por pares]

Boston: Boston University School of Law

Texto completo disponível

Citações Citado por
  • Título:
    RIFF ON THE SUPREME COURT'S COPYRIGHT CASES COMPARED TO ITS PATENT CASES
  • Autor: Samuelson, Pamela
  • Assuntos: Copyright ; Fair use ; Federal court decisions ; Inventors ; Jurisdiction
  • É parte de: Boston University law review, 2024-04, Vol.104 (3), p.965-987
  • Descrição: Gugliuzza and Lemley adopted 1982 as the starting point for their study, as this was the year that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") began its work as the appellate court with exclusive appellate jurisdiction over patent cases.2 A comparable marker for a study of the Court's copyright cases is the effective date of the Copyright Act of 1976 (the "1976 Act"): January 1, 1978 (although the Court did not decide its first copyright case in this period until 1984).3 The 1976 Act significantly changed copyright law, broadening the categories of eligible subject matters, simplifying its exclusive rights, adjusting the durations of rights, and codifying fair use and numerous other exceptions and limitations, among other things.4 This short study of the Court's copyright cases runs through 2023.5 The first noteworthy difference between the Court's copyright and patent cases is that the Justices heard far fewer copyright (30) than patent (62) cases during these time periods. The Court notably reversed all but one of that circuit's eleven rulings.7 The outcomes of the Court's copyright decisions favored putative infringers in six of the ten decided cases from the Ninth Circuit.8 The Second Circuit's copyright cases fared somewhat better than the Ninth's, as the Court reversed rulings in six of the eight copyright cases hailing from that appeals court.9 Most of the Court's reversals of Second Circuit decisions favored copyright owners.10 The other eleven cases came from seven circuit courts. Clustering Copyright Cases The Court's copyright cases, like its patent cases in the Gugliuzza-Lemley study, can meaningfully be clustered in groups.13 Nine were common law copyright cases.14 Another nine interpreted substantive provisions of the 1976 Act.15 In keeping with the Gugliuzza-Lemley terminology, the Court's common law and substantive statutory interpretation cases can aptly be characterized as "core" copyright cases.16 Eight were procedure or remedy cases.17 Four cases challenged the constitutionality of some aspects of the 1976 Act as amended.18 III. Inc., which held that private noncommercial time-shift copying of broadcast programs was fair use and selling video tape recording devices was not contributory infringement because they had substantial non-infringing uses.40 The third would be Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., which held that Campbell's rap parody of a popular song could qualify as a fair use.41 A fourth would be Eldred v. Ashcroft, which upheld the constitutionality of Congress' twenty-year extension of terms of existing copyrights.42 The fifth would be Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises, which reversed a Second Circuit ruling that a magazine's publication of some excerpts from a former President's unpublished memoir was fair use.43 These law review citation counts match up quite well with what most copyright scholars would regard as the Court's most important copyright cases.
  • Editor: Boston: Boston University School of Law
  • Idioma: Inglês
Voltar para lista de resultados

  • Realização: ABCD-USP USP   Logos de Redes Sociais: Freepik

Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.