Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Valérie Laure Benabou, a law professor at the University of Versailles and an esteemed expert on French and international copyright law, kindly agreed to share her thoughts on the Google vs. SAIF case decided yesterday by the Paris Court of Appeals:

An important decision of the Paris Court of Appeal was rendered yesterday in a litigation between Google and a French Collective Society for Visual Works (SAIF). The Collective Society claimed that Google was infringing on the copyright of its authors members by reproducing and displaying their works in the form of thumbnails on the pages of Google Image service and also by reproducing their works through Google caching system. Before the Court of First Instance, the Judge considered the applicable law to be the U.S. Copyright Act, and consequently, the court applied the fair use defense in line with the Arriba and Perfect 10 decisions.

The term open access is often used roughly to describe free circulation of academic and scholarly contributions over electronic media. The basic idea is to enhance speed and lower costs of access to new research and cutting-edge scholarship, as well as to improve collaboration between researches and allow them to benefit from the work and critique of their peers.

If you have ever actually read through a software end user license agreement, you know that they are often full of restrictions on how you can use the software. Typically, the agreement states that the license to use the software is contingent upon compliance with all of those restrictions. If you violate any of those provisions, you are breaching the agreement. But are you also committing copyright infringement? According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, it depends.

In its recent opinion in MDY Industries v. Blizzard Entertainment, the Ninth Circuit held that violation of a provision in a license agreement is only copyright infringement if the provision violated has a "nexus" to one of the exclusive rights granted under copyright law -- reproduction, public performance or display, distribution, and creation of derivative works. That means, for example, that failure to obey a license provision prohibiting cheating in a copyrighted video game is not copyright infringement. But violation of a prohibition on creating derivative works of the game would be. This holding has important implications. As EFF has pointed out, the court's decision will help prevent copyright owners from using copyright law to enforce onerous requirements on licensees. (Copyright law provides much stronger legal remedies than contract law.) But on the other hand, it is not clear what the decision means for public licensing schemes.

My book on digital copyright law is now finally available. Here is the abstract (from Oxford's website):

I’ve just posted my paper on information as IP subject matter. The paper addresses some basic questions about the idea of property-like rights in “information” at the abstract level. Beyond theory, the conception of information developed there has various applications to a host of more specific questions of IP law, e.g., copyright policy and judicial interpretation of statutory subject matter provisions. Comments are welcome.

It’s nothing new for media organizations to employ lofty rhetoric about the role of the press in democracy to advocate special legal privileges. Likewise, it’s nothing new for content creators to try to limit the speech rights of others in order to garner more profit. What is fairly new, however, is for the press to use language about the importance of the First Amendment to argue for a copyright policy that would explicitly limit free speech. In other words, in order to save the First Amendment, we have to limit the First Amendment. Irony is dead.

This week, Rupert Murdoch wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that exemplified this clever strategy. Aptly titled “Journalism and Freedom,” the article belittles the fair use doctrine and demands compensation for news content online, while going on to wax eloquent about the ideals of the Founding Fathers and the First Amendment. The problem is that the right he claims to value above all else, the freedom of speech, is precisely what prevents media companies like News Corp. from claiming ownership in the news. Facts cannot be owned, so while News Corp. can certainly prevent third parties from reproducing stories in full, it has no right to control the facts within those stories. This is not a peculiarity of copyright law; it is a protection of the First Amendment and an effort to create the informed citizenry Murdoch claims to cherish.

The long-awaited Amended Settlement Agreement (ASA) was filed yesterday. The relevant documents (including the new version of the settlement and a summery of the main changes) are available here. As someone who was looking into the international law aspects of the settlement recently, one of the first places for me to look was the new definition to a “Book”, which now reads as follows:

It was brought to my attention that the German high court decision on copyright and music sampling I had previously blogged on here received a fresh English translation that is now available online. (Thanks Tom Braegelmann!) It provides a highly detailed and careful exposition of the legal situation in Germany concerning music sampling and copyright law. As explained in the translators’ note:

Copyright treatise’ author and, for the past few years, Google’s copyright counsel William Patry has recently published a new book with Oxford University Press bearing the title “Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars”.

I was among those who deeply regretted (though fully understood) Mr. Patry’s decision to discontinue his popular blog on copyright about a year ago. Therefore, I was particularly delighted to learn that Patry has decided to start a new blog devoted to his new book.

Today the Supreme Court reportedly resolved not to hear the appeal on the Second Circuit’s Cablevision decision. This denial comes shortly after the Court has received the U.S. Government's brief recommending to reject the petition.