CyberForum

 


COPY-PASTING ENTIRE ARTICLES FROM OTHER SOURCES IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT

by What Do You Think? (no login)

 
.Los Angeles Times v. Free Republic

United States District Court

for the Central District of California

2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5669

March 31, 2000

CASE SUMMARY



PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant electronic bulletin board moved for summary judgment in plantiff newpapers' suit alleging defendant's unauthorized copying and posting of plaintiffs' news articles on defendant's site constituted copyright infringement. Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing defendant could not invoke fair use as a defense.



OVERVIEW: Entire text of articles published on plaintiff newspapers' websites were posted on defendants' website so members could add commentary. Plaintiffs sued, alleging unauthorized article copying and posting on defendants' website constituted copyright infringement. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the fair use doctrine. After balancing the fair use factors, plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment was granted. Plaintiffs demonstrated their attempts to exploit the market for viewing their articles online, for selling copies of archived articles, and for licensing others to display or sell the articles; the availability of verbatim copies on defendants' website potentially interfered with these markets. Because the copying was verbatim, encompassed large numbers of articles, and occurred on an almost daily basis, evidence supported finding that defendants engaged in extensive, systematic copying of plaintiffs' works. Although the character of defendants' website was non-commercial, they did not demonstrate that verbatim copying of plaintiffs' articles was necessary to achieve their critical purpose.



OUTCOME: Defendants failed to demonstrate that it was necessary to copy, verbatim, plaintiffs' articles to enable website users to criticize the manner in which the media covered current events. Verbatim posting of plaintiffs' articles was more than was necessary to further defendants' critical purpose




Posted on Jan 31, 2008, 2:19 PM
from IP address 68.229.136.204


Respond to this message

Goto Forum Home
Responses

  1. SO SAID United States District Court - Central District of California. Anonymous, Jan 31, 2008, 2:20 PM
    1. Hey, Whaddyathunk, you got Lexis-Nexis?. DSP, Jan 31, 2008, 3:20 PM
      1. NOPE, BUT I KNOW WHO TO CONTACT FOR THAT.. What Do You Think?, Jan 31, 2008, 3:35 PM
        1. Thanks, but I know her too.. Virgie Pig Valenzuela The Second, Jan 31, 2008, 4:43 PM
    2. SO THE TRIAL ENDED AND THE DEFENDANT LOST, NOW WHAT?. Napanice, Jan 31, 2008, 3:52 PM
      1. Bwahawr! "NOW WHAT?" Hak-halak-hahahahahak!. Virgie Pig Valenzuela The Second, Jan 31, 2008, 4:41 PM
        1. ARE YOU LOST?. Napanice, Feb 1, 2008, 8:28 AM
  2. ARTICLE 107 DOES NOT SAY THAT. THAT VERDICT APPLIES TO ONE CASE,ALONE.. Napanice, Jan 31, 2008, 3:48 PM
    1. Too bad there's no "Legal-Challenged" Alert. Tsk-tsk-tsk!. Virgie Pig Valenzuela The Second, Jan 31, 2008, 4:42 PM
    2. ARTICLE 107 DOES SAY THAT. IN SUBSECTION 3. SOMETHING WHICH YOU AVOIDED CITING BELOW. What Do You Think?, Jan 31, 2008, 9:49 PM
      1. WHO IS QUALIFIED TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION USING THE FACTORS MENTIONED?. Napanice, Jan 31, 2008, 11:38 PM
        1. I'LL GIVE YOU ANOTHER CHANCE TO MAKE A BETTER RESPONSE.. What Do You Think?, Jan 31, 2008, 11:54 PM
          1. BECAUSE THE ANSWER WILL BE THE REAL THING.. What Do You Think, Jan 31, 2008, 11:55 PM
            1. SO MUCH THE BETTER, SO DON'T WASTE ANY MORE TIME AND COUGH IT UP.. Napanice, Feb 1, 2008, 8:13 AM
              1. YEAH, I JUST MENTIONED WHO YESTERDAY.. What Do You Think?, Feb 1, 2008, 9:28 AM
          2. SO THINK LONG AND HARD WHETHER YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS PRESENT TACK YOU ARE TAKING.. What Do You Think?, Feb 1, 2008, 12:07 AM
            1. WELL, YOU HAVE BEEN ACCUSING ME ALL ALONG, ARE YOU QUALIFIED TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION?. Napanice, Feb 1, 2008, 8:23 AM
              1. ALONG WITH A JUDGE'S RULING BASICALLY ANYBODY CAN MAKE THE DETERMINATION.. What Do You Think?, Feb 1, 2008, 9:32 AM
          3. TIME'S UP, AND MAKE SURE YOU CITE THE SOURCE OF YOUR ANSWER.. Napanice, Feb 1, 2008, 8:11 AM
            1. YEAH, SURE. TRY RULING PRECEDENTS AS IN L.A. TIMES v FREE REPUBLIC.. What Do You Think?, Feb 1, 2008, 9:32 AM

Find more forums on PhillipinoCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement  

WWW.NEWSFLASH.ORG