Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)
Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)
Princeton University Press V. Michigan Document Services, Inc.99 F.3d 1381 (6th Ci r. 1996)David A. Nelson, Circuit Judge.This is a copyright infringe Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)ement case. The corporate defendant, Michigan Document Services, Inc., is a commercial copyshop that reproduced substantial segments of copyrighted works of scholarship, bound the copies into ‘'coursepacks," and sold the coursepacks to students for use in fulfilling reading assignments given by prof Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)essors at the University of Michigan. The copyshop acted without permission from the copyright holders, and the main question presented is whether thePrinceton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)
"fair use" doctrine codified at 17 u.s.c. § 107 obviated the need to obtain such permission.Answering this question "no," and finding the infringemenPrinceton University Press V. Michigan Document Services, Inc.99 F.3d 1381 (6th Ci r. 1996)David A. Nelson, Circuit Judge.This is a copyright infringe Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)hat may have been enhanced for willfulness. Princeton Univ. Press V. Michigan Document Servs., Inc., 855 F.Supp. 905 (E.D.Mich.1994). A three-judge panel of this court reversed the judgment on appeal, but a majority of the active judges of the court subsequently voted to rehear the case en banc. The Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996) appeal has now been argued before the full court.We agree with the district court that the defendants' commercial exploitation of the copyrighted matPrinceton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)
erials did not constitute fair use, and we shall affirm that branch of the district court's judgment. We believe that the district court erred in its Princeton University Press V. Michigan Document Services, Inc.99 F.3d 1381 (6th Ci r. 1996)David A. Nelson, Circuit Judge.This is a copyright infringe Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)ances in technology, the coursepack-an artifact largely unknown to college students when the author of this opinion was an undergraduate-has become almost as ubiquitous at American colleges and universities as the conventional textbook. From the standpoint of the professor responsible for developing Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996) and teaching a particular course, the availability of coursepacks has an obvious advantage; by selecting readings from a variety of sources, the profPrinceton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)
essor can create what amounts to an anthology perfectly tailored to the course the professor wants to present.The physical production of coursepacks iPrinceton University Press V. Michigan Document Services, Inc.99 F.3d 1381 (6th Ci r. 1996)David A. Nelson, Circuit Judge.This is a copyright infringe Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)p does the rest. Adding a cover page and a table of contents, perhaps, the copyshop runs off as many sets as are needed, does the necessary binding, and sells the finished product to the professor's students.Ann Arbor, the home of the University of Michigan, is also home to several copyshops. Among Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)them is defendant Michigan Document Services (MDS), a corporation owned by defendant James Smith. We are told that MDS differs frommost, if not all, oPrinceton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)
f its competitors in at least one important way: it does not request permission from, nor does it pay agreed royalties to, copyright owners.Mr. Smith Princeton University Press V. Michigan Document Services, Inc.99 F.3d 1381 (6th Ci r. 1996)David A. Nelson, Circuit Judge.This is a copyright infringe Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)own in the trade. The story begins in March of 1991, when Judge Constance Baker Motley, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, decided the first reported case involving the copyright implications of educational coursepacks. See Basic Books, Inc. V. Kinko's Graphic Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)s Corp., 758 F.Supp. 1522 (S.D.N.Y.1991), holding that a Kinko's copyshop had violated the copyright statute by creating and selling coursepacks withoPrinceton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)
ut permission from the publishing houses that held the copyrights. After Kinko's, we are told, many copyshops that had not previously requested permisPrinceton University Press V. Michigan Document Services, Inc.99 F.3d 1381 (6th Ci r. 1996)David A. Nelson, Circuit Judge.This is a copyright infringe Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)ed him that while it was "risky" not to obtain permission, there were flaws in the Kinko's decision. Mr. Smith also undertook his own study of the fair use doctrine, reading what he could find on this subject in a law library. He ultimately concluded that the Kinko's case had been wrongly decided, a Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)nd he publicized this conclusion through speeches, writings, and advertisements. His advertisements stressed that professors whose students purchasedPrinceton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)
his coursepacks would not have to worry about delays attendant upon obtaining permission from publishers.Not surprisingly, Mr. Smith attracted the attPrinceton University Press V. Michigan Document Services, Inc.99 F.3d 1381 (6th Ci r. 1996)David A. Nelson, Circuit Judge.This is a copyright infringe Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)resent suit against Mr. Smith and his corporation.Each of the plaintiff publishers maintains a department that processes requests for permission to reproduce portions of copyrighted works. (In addition, copyshops may request such permission through the Copyright Clearance Center, a national clearing Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)house.) Macmillan and st. Martin's, both of which are for-profit companies, claim that they generally respond within two weeks to requests for permissPrinceton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)
ion to make copies for classroom use. Princeton, a non-profit organization, claims to respond within two to four weeks. Mr. Smith has not put these clPrinceton University Press V. Michigan Document Services, Inc.99 F.3d 1381 (6th Ci r. 1996)David A. Nelson, Circuit Judge.This is a copyright infringe Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)without permission. The works in question, and the statistics on the magnitude of the excerpts, are as follows: Nancy J. Weiss, Farewell to the Party of Lincoln: Black Politics in the Age of FDR (95 pages copied, representing 30 percent of the entire book); Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion (45 pages Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)copied, representing 18 percent of the whole); Robert E. Layne, Political Ideology: Why the American Common Man Believes What He Does (78 pages, 16 pePrinceton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)
rcent); Roger Brown, Social Psychology (52 pages, 8 percent); Milton Rokeach, The Nature of Human Values (77 pages, 18 percent); James s. Olson and RaPrinceton University Press V. Michigan Document Services, Inc.99 F.3d 1381 (6th Ci r. 1996)David A. Nelson, Circuit Judge.This is a copyright infringe Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)esented by the case appear to be purely legal in nature.IIThe fair use doctrine, which creates an exception to the copyright monopoly, ■'permits [and requires] courts to avoid rigid application of the copyright statute when, on occasion, it would stifle the very creativity which that law is designed Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996) to foster." Campbell V. Acuff-Rose Music. Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 577, 114 S.Ct. 1164, 1170, 127 L.Ed.2d 500 (1994), quoting Stewart V. Abend, 495 U.S. 2Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)
07, 236, 110 S.Ct. 1750, 1768, 109 L.Ed.2d 184 (1990). Initially developed by the courts, the doctrine was codified at 17 u.s.c. § 107 in 1976. CongrePrinceton University Press V. Michigan Document Services, Inc.99 F.3d 1381 (6th Ci r. 1996)David A. Nelson, Circuit Judge.This is a copyright infringe Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996) such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--1the purp Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)ose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;-2the nature of the copyriPrinceton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)
ghted work;-3the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and-4the effect of the use upon the potPrinceton University Press V. Michigan Document Services, Inc.99 F.3d 1381 (6th Ci r. 1996)David A. Nelson, Circuit Judge.This is a copyright infringe Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)ther, "whether a use referred to in the first sentence of Section 107 is a fair use in a particular case ... dependls] upon the application of the determinative factors." Campbell, 510 U.S. at 578 n. 9, 114 s.ct. at 1170 n. 9, quoting S.Rep. No. 94-473, p. 62.FN1FN1. Judge Merritt's dissent rejects Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)this proposition and asserts, in effect, that under the plain language of the copyright statute the making of multiple copies for classroom use constiPrinceton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)
tutes fair use ipso facto. Judge Merritt's reading of the statute would be unassailable if Congress had said that "the use of a copyrighted work for pPrinceton University Press V. Michigan Document Services, Inc.99 F.3d 1381 (6th Ci r. 1996)David A. Nelson, Circuit Judge.This is a copyright infringe Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)id, rather, that "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use [i.e. including "fair use”] ... for purposes such as ... teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use)... is not aninfringement of copyright."When read in its entirety, as Judge Ryan's dissent correctly recognizes, the Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996) quoted sentence says that fair use of a copyrighted work for purposes such as teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use) is not an infrinPrinceton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. 99 F.3d 1381 (6th Cir. 1996)
gement. And the statutory factors set forth in the next sentence must be considered in determining whether the making of multiple copies for classroomGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook