Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc.

Last updated

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc.
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Full case nameColumbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc.
ArguedAugust 14 1984
DecidedNovember 23 1984
Citation(s)749 F.2d 154
Case history
Procedural historyAffirmed holding from 568 F.Supp. 494 (W.D. Pa. 1983)
Holding
The defendants' activities constituted an unauthorized public exhibition of the plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures, which is copyright infringement under §107 through § 118 of the Copyright Act.
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Ruggero J. Aldisert, Joseph F. Weis, Jr., Edward D. Re
Case opinions
Majority Edward D. Re
Laws applied
Copyright Act of 1976

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc., 749 F.2d 154 (3rd Circuit, 1984) was a copyright infringement case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit over the playing video cassettes in-store of a video sale and rental store. The appeals court affirmed the decision of the district court to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and enjoin defendants from exhibiting plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures. [1]

Contents

Background

Maxwell's Video Showcase, Ltd. (Maxwell's) was a company that operated two video sale and rental stores in Erie, Pennsylvania. The stores had a small showroom area and showcase area. The showroom area contained video equipment and materials for sale or rental, but the showcase room, on the other hand, was used for patrons to view video contents in small booths with space for two to four people. The two stores had eighty-five booths in total. Customers who wanted to use the showcase facilities selected a film from a catalogue and the fee charged depended on the number of people in a viewing booth and the time of day. After they entered the booth, the motion picture of the selected film was transmitted to the viewing booth. [1]

The defendants appealed from an injunctive order made by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to stop performing plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures. Also, they appealed from an award of damages against plaintiffs in the amount of $44,750.00. [1]

The defendants obtained the video cassette copies for viewing legally. The sale or rental of these cassettes to individuals for home viewing was also not at issue. Columbia Pictures did not contend that in-home use infringes their copyright. It argued that the exhibition or showing of the video cassettes in private booths constituted an unauthorized public performance. In turn, this violated Columbia Pictures' exclusive rights under federal copyright laws. [1]

Opinion

Maxwell's legally obtained the video copies either from Columbia Pictures Industries or their authorized distributors. However, defendants were not licensed to exercise the right of distribution. The court concluded that playing a video cassette clearly resulted in a showing of a motion picture's images and in making the sounds accompanying it audible, which was what to perform a work meant. Thus, Maxwell's activities constituted an unlicensed performance of copyrighted works under section 101. [1] [2]

The court also concluded the performance was made in public, though the viewers were in their small booths in Maxwell's facilities. This was because performance made available by such transmission constituted a public performance, even if the recipients were not physically at the same place and in a private setting according to section 101. [2]

The court found that Maxwell's viewings make up public performances according specifically to subsection (2) of public performance:

(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance . . . of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance . . . receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times. [1]

In addition, although Maxwell's had one copy of each copyrighted film, it has showed each of them repeatedly to viewers. Thus, this made the activity public under section 106. [1] [3]

The First Sale Doctrine

Among the most significant limits of the owner's rights is found in Section 109 of the 1976 Copyright Protection Act. The "first sale doctrine," basically establishes that when a copyright owner has transferred ownership of a particular copy, the person to whom the copy is transferred is permitted, without the consent of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy." [4]

In this case, Maxwell's argued that the first sale doctrine [5] protected their right to operate the viewing booths. That is, their activities didn't require the copyright owner's authority. However, the court regarded the defendants' "first sale" argument as merely another aspect of their main argument that their activities were not public. This was because Maxwell's always maintained the ownership of the videotapes and the fees paid by patrons were for showcasing operation, but not for the physical dominion over the tapes. [1]

Liability of Co-Defendants

The court affirmed the holding made by the district court that Robert Zeny, Glenn W. Zeny, and Redd Horne, Inc,. were liable as co-infringers. This was mainly based on the holding that a person who had knowledge of the infringing activity and induced or contributed to the activity may be held liable as a 'contributory' infringer. [note 1]

Impact

There exist some critical viewpoints on the holding. David Mittleman argued that the existing framework on copyright infringement might discourage innovative applications on it so that it may contribute the copyright owner's monopoly. [6] A later copyright case Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. WTV Systems, Inc. drew on this opinion to determine that rental service Zediva's relationship with its customers constituted a public performance, effectively shutting down Zediva with a preliminary injunction. [7]

At the time, additional concerns centered on the transmission of such material via videotape at public libraries. For example, author Jerome Miller writes that this case's decision was not popular amongst librarian professionals. He found that the results of the case forced librarians to make difficult choices. They could either terminate in-house showings or buy a license from groups such as the Motion Picture Licensing Corp. This offered new procedures for showing films within instructional settings. [8]

At present, this case has received considerable attention within the motion picture industry and DVD streaming websites. It has been cited as justification to close certain movie streaming websites. During October 2011, Zediva took down their DVD streaming service and agreed to pay $1.8 million to the Motion Picture Association. [9] Zediva argued that it serves a similar function as rental stores like Blockbuster who don't need a licensing agreement to rent movies. Zediva only rented DVD's to one customer at a time and did not make DVD copies. The Motion Picture Association contended that this type of streaming was illegal and in violation of copyright law. In August 2011, the U.S. District court Judge John Walter ordered a preliminary injunction against Zediva, shutting down their service. The Columbia Pictures v. Redd Horne ruling played a key role in this case. [10]

Notes

Related Research Articles

Grokster Ltd. was a privately owned software company based in Nevis, West Indies that created the Grokster peer-to-peer file-sharing client in 2001 that used the FastTrack protocol. Grokster Ltd. was rendered extinct in late 2005 by the United States Supreme Court's decision in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. The court ruled against Grokster's peer-to-peer file sharing program for computers running the Microsoft Windows operating system, effectively forcing the company to cease operations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Video rental shop</span> Physical retail business that rents home videos

A video rental shop/store is a physical retail business that rents home videos such as movies, prerecorded TV shows, video game discs and other media content. Typically, a rental shop conducts business with customers under conditions and terms agreed upon in a rental agreement or contract, which may be implied, explicit, or written. Many video rental stores also sell previously viewed movies and/or new, unopened movies.

The first-sale doctrine is an American legal concept that limits the rights of an intellectual property owner to control resale of products embodying its intellectual property. The doctrine enables the distribution chain of copyrighted products, library lending, giving, video rentals and secondary markets for copyrighted works. In trademark law, this same doctrine enables reselling of trademarked products after the trademark holder puts the products on the market. In the case of patented products, the doctrine allows resale of patented products without any control from the patent holder. The first sale doctrine does not apply to patented processes, which are instead governed by the patent exhaustion doctrine.

Copyright misuse is an equitable defence to copyright infringement in the United States based upon the doctrine of unclean hands. The misuse doctrine provides that the copyright holder engaged in abusive or improper conduct in exploiting or enforcing the copyright will be precluded from enforcing his rights against the infringer. Copyright misuse is often comparable to and draws from the older and more established doctrine of patent misuse, which bars a patentee from obtaining relief for infringement when he extends his patent rights beyond the limited monopoly conferred by the law.

A re-edited film is a motion picture that has been modified from the manner in which it was showcased in its original theatrical release. Reasons for this type of editing may range from the distributor's demands to accommodating different audience groups. Fan-made movie edits are often met with controversy, as they bring up issues of copyright law.

The Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) is a British organisation established in 1983 to protect and represent the interests of its members' intellectual property (IP). FACT also investigates fraud and cybercrime, and provides global due diligence services to support citizenship investment and trade, business, financial and legal compliance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Derivative work</span> Concept in copyright law

In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work. The derivative work becomes a second, separate work independent from the first. The transformation, modification or adaptation of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright. Translations, cinematic adaptations and musical arrangements are common types of derivative works.

Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), also known as the "Betamax case", is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but can instead be defended as fair use. The court also ruled that the manufacturers of home video recording devices, such as Betamax or other VCRs, cannot be liable for contributory infringement. The case was a boon to the home video market, as it created a legal safe harbor for the technology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</span> United States copyright law

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a 1998 United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet. Passed on October 12, 1998, by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended Title 17 of the United States Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of the providers of online services for copyright infringement by their users.

<i>Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.</i> American legal case

Cartoon Network, LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding copyright infringement in the context of DVR systems operated by cable television service providers. It is notable for partially overturning the Ninth Circuit precedent MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., regarding whether a momentary data stream is a "copy" per copyright law.

<i>Flava Works Inc. v. Gunter</i> 2012 US decision on copyright infringement

Flava Works, Inc v. Gunter, 689 F.3d 754, is a decision by the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, authored by Judge Richard Posner, which held that Marques Gunter, the sole proprietor of the site myVidster.com, a social bookmarking website that enables its users to share videos posted elsewhere online through embedded frames, was not liable for its users' sharing and embedding of copyrighted videos. The court of appeals reversed the decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, which had granted a preliminary injunction against myVidster, citing sufficient knowledge of infringement on Gunter's part, while denying safe harbor defense under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The Court held that Gunter was not directly liable because the copyrighted content was not stored on myVidster's servers, and was not contributorily liable because there was no evidence that conduct by myVidster increased the amount of infringement.

Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Starware Publishing Corp. 900 F.Supp. 433 was a case heard before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in May 1995. The case revolved around the subject of copyright infringement and exclusive rights in copyrighted works. Plaintiff Playboy Enterprises filed a motion for partial summary judgment of liability of copyright infringement against defendant Starware Publishing Corporation. Specifically, Playboy Enterprises ("PEI") argued that Starware's distribution of 53 of Playboy's images, taken from an online bulletin board, and then sold on a CD-ROM, infringed upon PEI's copyrights. The case affirmed that it was copyright infringement, granting Playboy Enterprises the partial summary judgment. Most importantly, the case established that "The copyright owner need not prove knowledge or intent on the part of the defendant to establish liability for direct copyright infringement."

<i>Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co.</i>

Roth Greeting Cards v. United Card Co., 429 F.2d 1106, was a Ninth Circuit case involving the copyright of greeting cards that introduced the "total concept and feel" standard for determining substantial similarity. Courts used this test in later cases such as Reyher v. Children's Television Workshop (1976).

<i>Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc.</i>

Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 934 F. Supp. 2d 640 , is a case from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York concerning copyright infringement of digital music. In ReDigi, record label Capitol Records claimed copyright infringement against ReDigi, a service that allows resale of digital music tracks originally purchased from the iTunes Store. Capitol Records' motion for a preliminary injunction against ReDigi was denied, and oral arguments were given on October 5, 2012.

Warner Bros. Entertainment v. WTV Systems is a 2011 copyright infringement case decided in United States District Court, C.D. California.

<i>Mandeville-Anthony v. Walt Disney Co.</i>

Mandeville-Anthony v. The Walt Disney Company, 11-56441, is a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case in which the Court evaluated whether defendants Pixar, The Walt Disney Company, Disney Enterprises, Inc. and Walt Disney Pictures infringed on Jake Mandeville-Anthony's copyrighted works. Plaintiff Mandeville-Anthony's claim for copyright infringement was first dismissed by the United States District Court for the Central District of California, because the court found that the parties’ works were not substantially similar. Mandeville-Anthony made copyright infringement claims with regards to his works Cookie & Co. and Cars/Auto-Excess/Cars Chaos, an animated television show and movie, that he believed Disney copied in order to make their own films, Cars and Cars 2, both of which were very successful, and the animated television show Cars Toons: Mater's Tall Tales. He also made breach of contract claims stating that he and Disney signed a contract barring Disney from using the ideas contained in his works. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

<i>Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1–1,495</i>

Hard Drive Productions, Inc. v. Does 1–1,495, Civil Action No. 11-1741 (JDB/JMF), was a United States District Court for the District of Columbia case in which the court held that anonymous users of the peer-to-peer file sharing service BitTorrent could not remain anonymous after charges of copyright infringement were brought against them. The court ultimately dismissed the case, but the identities of defendants were publicly exposed.

<i>Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. iCraveTV</i>

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v. iCraveTV, 2000 WL 255989, was a court case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania which enjoined iCraveTV, a Canadian TV streaming website, from operating within the US after finding it in violation of 20th Century Fox's, and several other motion picture studios and television networks, copyrights and trademarks. Granted February 8, 2000, this injunction, along with continued legal pressure, led to the iCraveTV's demise just 3 months after its debut. As of March 28, 2019, the library is included due to Disney's acquisition of 21st Century Fox.

<i>Garware Plastics and Polyester vs Telelink</i> 1989 Indian court case

Garware Plastics and Polyester vs Telelink was a court case in India. It was handled by the Bombay High Court and was decided on 31 January 1989.

DC Comics v. Mark Towle was a copyright case heard in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit in September 2015. The case concerned defendant Mark Towle, who built and sold replicas of the Batmobile in his garage named 'Garage Gotham'. DC Comics initially filed a lawsuit, in May 2011, in the federal district court alleging causes of action for copyright infringement, trademark infringement and unfair competition arising out of Mark's manufacture and sale of replicas. The plaintiffs, DC Comics, claimed the infringement of their copyright as the replicas sold by Mark were similar to the ones that appeared in 1966 television show Batman and the 1989 film Batman. The issue discussed by the court was "whether a character in a comic book, television program or motion picture is entitled to copyright protection". The ninth circuit followed the precedents and came up with a three-part test to determine the protection given to such characters.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, 749F.2d154 (3rd Cir.1984).
  2. 1 2 17 U.S.C.   § 101
  3. ↑ 17 U.S.C.   § 106
  4. ↑ Colby, Richard (1984–1985). "Articles". Copyright Society USA (77). Retrieved November 4, 2012.
  5. ↑ 17 U.S.C.   § 109
  6. ↑ David Mittleman (1986). "Copyright Infringement: Small Booths Lead to Big Trouble for Video Stores". Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review. 6 (1): 147–159. Retrieved September 29, 2012.
  7. ↑ Robinson, Daniel (2011). "Court Shuts Down DVD Streaming Service Zediva". Archived from the original on November 17, 2011. Retrieved September 28, 2012.
  8. ↑ Miller, Jerome K. "Showing Videocasettes in Libraries: The current controversy" . Retrieved November 4, 2012.[ permanent dead link ]
  9. ↑ Ortutay, Barbara (November 1, 2011). "Zediva DVD-Streaming Service Killed After Losing Lawsuit Against Studios". Huffington Post. Retrieved November 4, 2012.
  10. ↑ Mullin, Joe. "Zediva's Illegal DVD-Streaming Service". Paid Content.Org. Archived from the original on April 19, 2013. Retrieved November 4, 2012.
  11. ↑ Cushing, Tim (August 10, 2011). "1984 Case Shows Abuse Of Phrase 'Public Performance' Has A Long, Ugly History" . Retrieved September 29, 2012.
  12. ↑ Haas, Merle (May 30, 2012). "Associations & Music Licensing Fees" . Retrieved September 29, 2012.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.