SO SAID United States District Court - Central District of Californiaby Anonymous (no login)
.ANYBODY WANT TO COPY AND PASTE ENTIRE NEWS ARTICLES?
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
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, 2:20 PM
from IP address 220.127.116.11
Respond to this message
Goto Forum HomeResponses
- Hey, Whaddyathunk, you got Lexis-Nexis?. DSP, Jan 31, 2008, 3:20 PM
- NOPE, BUT I KNOW WHO TO CONTACT FOR THAT.. What Do You Think?, Jan 31, 2008, 3:35 PM
- Thanks, but I know her too.. Virgie Pig Valenzuela The Second, Jan 31, 2008, 4:43 PM
- SO THE TRIAL ENDED AND THE DEFENDANT LOST, NOW WHAT?. Napanice, Jan 31, 2008, 3:52 PM
- Bwahawr! "NOW WHAT?" Hak-halak-hahahahahak!. Virgie Pig Valenzuela The Second, Jan 31, 2008, 4:41 PM
- ARE YOU LOST?. Napanice, Feb 1, 2008, 8:28 AM