Abstract
The long-awaited rulings in the copyright infringement lawsuit provide the most specific guidance available to date on the fair use of certain types of materials in e-reserves systems and online course management systems. Unless successfully appealed or otherwise overturned, this case represents a significant victory for Georgia State University specifically and higher education in general. In addition to rejecting the 1976 Classroom Copying Guidelines for Books and Periodicals as an appropriate legal standard for fair use, the case holds that semester-to-semester use of the same material is permitted by fair use. Further, at least for non-fiction books, this case provides somewhat formulaic standards for evaluating fair use. Finally, the potential financial implications of this case are analyzed and suggestions for institutional due diligence are recommended.
Highlights
While the trial ended in July of 2011, it took Judge Orinda Evans eleven months to issue a ruling in the closely watched copyright infringement case brought by Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Inc. and Sage Publications, Inc. against Georgia State University [1]
Filed on April 15, 2008 [2], this case represents the first time a university was confronted with allegations of massive copyright infringement resulting from posting copyright protected works to its e-reserves and online course management systems
The case against Georgia State University is the extension to earlier lawsuits against Kinko’s Graphics Corp. [3] and Michigan Documents Services [4]—cases that resulted in publisher Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks - Vol 18, No 1 (2014)
Summary
While the trial ended in July of 2011, it took Judge Orinda Evans eleven months to issue a ruling in the closely watched copyright infringement case brought by Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, Inc. and Sage Publications, Inc. against Georgia State University [1]. While acknowledging the end use of the course packs was for non-profit educational purposes, both the copying and distribution channels were viewed to be for-profit in nature Both Kinko's and Michigan Documents Services lost their fair use arguments and were found to be engaging in copyright infringement [3, 4]. Even at the time of the Kinko’s case, the judge left room for a different outcome if the copying and distribution occurred on-campus: “Expressly, the decision of the court does not consider copying performed by students, libraries, nor on-campus copy shops, whether conducted for-profit or not” [3, footnote 13] This case begins to offer answers to the parameters of fair use when undertaken on the campus of a public, non-profit university
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
