|
''Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al.'' (also captioned ''v. Becker''), 1:2008cv01425, is an ongoing case in the Northern District of Georgia in which three publishers, Cambridge University Press, SAGE Publications, and Oxford University Press, are suing Georgia State University for copyright infringement. The plaintiffs claimed that Georgia State University engaged in "systematic, widespread and unauthorized copying and distribution of a vast amount of copyrighted works" through its e-reserves system. Georgia State asserted that its system did not infringe copyright because its uses were fair use. The district court issued a 350-page findings of fact and conclusions of law on May 11, 2012, finding that in almost all cases the alleged infringements were fair use.〔''(Cambridge University Press v. Patton )'', No. 08-01425 (D.Ga. May 11, 2012).〕 In a subsequent decision the court deemed that Georgia State University was the "prevailing party" and ordered the plaintiffs to pay GSU's attorney's fees.〔Steve Kolowich, ('The Prevailing Party' ), ''Inside Higher Ed'' (Aug. 13, 2012).〕 Notwithstanding the "prevailing party" decision, the plaintiffs characterized the case as "flawed" but not a "loss",〔Andrew Albanese, ("Publishers Appeal 'Flawed' Decision in GSU E-Reserves Case" ), ''Publishers Weekly'', Sept. 11, 2012.〕 but nonetheless filed an appeal.〔See (Publishers Brief in appeal ), filed 2013.〕 The costs of the litigation were funded in large part by the Copyright Clearance Center, a licensing company which funded 50% of the litigation and announced plans to continue to do so on appeal,〔 and the Association of American Publishers (AAP). On October 17, 2014, the 11th Circuit reversed and remanded to the lower court for reconsideration in light of its opinion.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201214676.pdf )〕 The 11th Circuit reversed the grant of attorney's fees, and closely examined the lower court's 300-plus page fair use decision in their own 129-page decision, affirming and reversing various portions of the District Court's analysis.〔 ==Pre-Trial== Cambridge University Press, SAGE Publications, and Oxford University Press filed the lawsuit on April 15, 2008.〔 They named four Georgia State officials as the defendants.〔 The plaintiffs alleged that Georgia State made over 6,700 works available through its e-reserves system and website.〔 They also alleged that the university "invit() students to download, view, and print such materials without permission of the copyright holder."〔 The plaintiffs alleged direct, vicarious, and contributory infringement. They filed for summary judgment on all three claims, and Georgia State submitted counter-motions for summary judgment.〔 On February 17, 2009, the Georgia Board of Regents changed the challenged e-reserve system, making it more similar to peer institutions.〔 Following this change, on June 22, 2009, the university was granted a court order that limited discovery to the university's ongoing conduct.〔 On October 1, 2010, Judge Orinda Evans granted summary judgment in favor of Georgia State on the claims of direct and vicarious infringement.〔 She granted summary judgment on direct infringement because there was not enough evidence to show that any of the four named defendants engaged in acts of infringement.〔 She also granted summary judgment on vicarious infringement because there was no evidence the named defendants profited from the alleged infringement of librarians working under them.〔 The plaintiffs then submitted a partial motion for reconsideration. The judge granted it, allowing the vicarious infringement claim to go forward under a theory of indirect liability.〔 Money damages were not at issue in the case.〔 Under the doctrine of state sovereign immunity, the plaintiffs could only seek injunctive relief against Georgia State. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Cambridge University Press v. Patton」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|