Cambridge University Press v. Patton

769 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2014)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Ps are three publishing houses that specialize in academic works. Ps do not publish the large, general textbooks commonly used in entry-level university courses. Ps publish advanced scholarly works, which might be used in upper-level undergraduate and graduate courses. Ps publish scholarly books and journals on niche subject areas. Their works involved in this case include research-based monographs, which are 'small, single-author books which give an in-depth analysis of a narrow topic,' instructional books, trade books, and other works on academic topics. Ps market their books to professors who teach at universities and colleges. Rather than assigning whole books, some professors assign or suggest excerpts from the books as part of the curriculum for their courses. Professors might do this by putting the work on reserve at the university library so that students can visit the library to read an assigned excerpt. Or, professors might prepare a bound, photocopied, paper 'coursepack' containing excerpts from several works for a particular course. Often, a third-party copy shop assembles these coursepacks, performing the copying and binding, obtaining the necessary licenses from publishers, and charging students a fee for the finished coursepack. In recent years, digital distribution of excerpts over the Internet has become extremely common. GSU (D) is a public university and maintains two on-campus systems known as 'ERes' and 'uLearn' for digital distribution of course materials to students. GSU (D) has used ERes to allow students to access course materials-including course syllabi, class notes, sample exams, and excerpts from books and journals-on the Internet via a web browser. ERes course websites are password-protected in order to limit access to the students in the particular course. Once a course ends, students no longer have access to the ERes website for that course. ULearn provides course-specific web pages through which professors may make course material available, including digital copies of excerpts from books, which students in the course may view, print, or save. ULearn allows professors to upload digital copies of reading material directly to their course websites while ERes forces professors to rely on library personnel to upload reading material for them. During the Spring 2009 term, paper coursepacks were offered for only about fifteen courses, while instructors in hundreds of courses made readings available on ERes. Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) is a not-for-profit corporation with headquarters in Danvers, Massachusetts. CCC licenses excerpts from copyrighted works for a fee, acting on behalf of publishers who choose to make their works available through CCC. These licenses are called 'permissions.' Ps offer excerpt-specific permissions to photocopy or digitally reproduce portions of their works, which may be obtained directly from Ps or through CCC. Permissions are not available for every work. Software is available that would allow GSU (D) library personnel to place an order with CCC for permission to provide students with a digital copy of an excerpt via ERes. When the GSU (D) bookstore assembles and sells a paper coursepack containing excerpts from copyrighted works, GSU (D) pays permission fees for use of the excerpts. The dispute is over posting digital copies of excerpts to ERes or uLearn. On April 15, 2008, Ps sued Ds alleging that hundreds of GSU (D) professors have made thousands of copyrighted works-including works owned or controlled by Ps-available on GSU's electronic reserve systems without obtaining permissions from copyright holders and that GSU's administration facilitated, encouraged, and induced this practice. Ps alleged both direct infringement, contributory infringement, and vicarious infringement. Ps sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Ds denied infringement, asserted fair use, and claimed sovereign and Eleventh Amendment immunity. In late December 2008, Ds announced a new copyright policy. D professors who wish to post an excerpt of a copyrighted work on ERes or uLearn for distribution to their students must first determine whether they believe that doing so would be fair use. In order to make this determination, professors must fill out a 'Fair Use Checklist' for each excerpt. The analysis is similar to what a court would do. The fair use analysis involves a consideration of whether allowing unpaid use in a given case would be equitable and serve the objectives of copyright in light of four statutory factors. For each factor, the Checklist provides several criteria that purportedly weigh either for or against a finding of fair use, each with a corresponding checkbox. The professor then adds up the checks to determine whether the factor weighs in favor of or against a finding of fair use. Under [the 2009 Policy, a GSU professor may post an excerpt of a copyrighted work on ERes or uLearn without obtaining permission from the copyright holder if the professor first decides that doing so would be protected by the doctrine of fair use, according to the criteria set forth in the Checklist. Both parties moved for summary judgment on February 26, 2010. On August 20, 2010, Ps filed a list showing 126 claimed infringements. On September 30, 2010, the District Court denied Ps' motion for summary judgment. The District Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion for summary judgment, granting summary judgment to Ds on the claims of direct and vicarious infringement, and denying summary judgment to Ds on the claim of contributory infringement. Eventually, a bench trial began on May 17, 2011. The District Court granted Ds' motion for judgment on the contributory infringement claim, leaving only the claim that the 2009 Policy directly caused copyright infringement. On June 1, 2011, Ps voluntarily filed a revised list of seventy-five claimed infringements, relating to sixty-four separate works. In its decision, the District Court set forth the parameters of its fair use analysis. The District Court determined that 'the right approach is to select a percentage of pages which reasonably limits copying and to couple that with a reasonable limit on the number of chapters which may be copied.' The court presented a table related to the size of the book and the percentage copied. It also made a series of general conclusions and then applied these general conclusions to all the infringements claimed. It then applied its mechanical rules to the alleged infringements. After the application of its mechanical tests to each alleged infringement and 4 part analysis, the Court held that Ds had infringed Ps' copyrights in five instances. On August 10, 2012, the District Court issued an order entering declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court enjoined Defendants 'to maintain copyright policies for Georgia State University which are not inconsistent with the Court's Order of May 11, 2012, and this Order.' Because 'Ds prevailed on all but five of the [ninety-nine] copyright claims which were at issue when the trial began,' the District Court declared Ds the prevailing party and determined that it would exercise its discretion to award attorneys' fees and costs to Ds. Ds were awarded attorneys' fees of $2,861,348.71 and costs of $85,746.39. Ps appealed.