Greenberg v. National Geographic

Last updated

Greenberg v. National Geographic was a copyright lawsuit regarding image use and republication rights of National Geographic Society to their magazine in electronic form.

Contents

Details

After the National Geographic released a digital archive containing all monthly issues of National Geographic magazine in 1997, photographer Jerry Greenberg took the Society to court over the reproduction of photographs that National Geographic had licensed from him. National Geographic withdrew this archive from the market in 2004 until after litigation was finished. The archive, called "The Complete National Geographic on CD-ROM and DVD", contained image duplicates of the print magazines. National Geographic argued that the archive was a "revision", and thus National Geographic held the license to republish. The plaintiff argued that the archive, which included an introductory sequence set to music and a search feature, was a new work. [1] [2]

Rulings

Two federal appellate courts made rulings on the cases. In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled against National Geographic, [3] before a ruling in a similar case later in the year in the U.S. Supreme Court, in respect to the same U.S. Copyright law statute, New York Times Co. v. Tasini . [4]

On March 4, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said that Greenberg was inconsistent with the Supreme Court ruling in Tasini, and ruled in favor of National Geographic in another case regarding the Complete National Geographic product (Faulkner v. National Geographic Enterprises). [5]

On June 13, 2007, the Eleventh Circuit reversed its prior decision in Greenberg I and remanded the case back to the U.S. district court, agreeing with the Second Circuit ruling in Faulkner that Greenberg I was inconsistent with the later Tasini decision (Greenberg II). [6]

On August 30, 2007, the Eleventh Circuit issued an order vacating the panel decision in Greenberg II [7] and said the Court would hear the appeal en banc, or by all the judges on the Court, which was heard February 26, 2008.

On June 30, 2008, the Eleventh Circuit held (Greenberg III) [8] that National Geographic's reproduction of its magazine electronically was privileged under the federal copyright statute. [9]

Results

Since National Geographic's victory in the Second Circuit, several publications (including The New Yorker , Playboy , Atlantic Monthly , Mad Magazine , and Rolling Stone ) have either produced or announced plans to produce complete reproductions of their prior paper magazines on DVD or a restricted website for subscribers.

As a result of this ruling National Geographic announced it is releasing the full 120-year version of its magazine at the end of October 2009. [10]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States courts of appeals</span> Post-1891 U.S. appellate circuit courts

The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal judiciary. The courts of appeals are divided into 13 "Circuits". Eleven of the circuits are numbered "First" through "Eleventh" and cover geographic areas of the United States and hear appeals from the U.S. district courts within their borders. The District of Columbia Circuit covers only Washington, DC. The Federal Circuit hears appeals from federal courts across the United States in cases involving certain specialized areas of law. The courts of appeals also hear appeals from some administrative agency decisions and rulemaking, with by far the largest share of these cases heard by the D.C. Circuit. Appeals from decisions of the courts of appeals can be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In law, an en banc session is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court rather than by one judge or a smaller panel of judges.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Frank Easterbrook</span> United States federal judge

Frank Hoover Easterbrook is an American lawyer and jurist who has served as a United States circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit since 1985. He was the Seventh Circuit's chief judge from 2006 to 2013.

Neither software nor computer programs are explicitly mentioned in statutory United States patent law. Patent law has changed to address new technologies, and decisions of the United States Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) beginning in the latter part of the 20th century have sought to clarify the boundary between patent-eligible and patent-ineligible subject matter for a number of new technologies including computers and software. The first computer software case in the Supreme Court was Gottschalk v. Benson in 1972. Since then, the Supreme Court has decided about a half dozen cases touching on the patent eligibility of software-related inventions.

Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which public interest in learning about a historical figure's impressions of a historic event was held not to be sufficient to show fair use of material otherwise protected by copyright. Defendant, The Nation, had summarized and quoted substantially from A Time to Heal, President Gerald Ford's forthcoming memoir of his decision to pardon former president Richard Nixon. When Harper & Row, who held the rights to A Time to Heal, brought suit, The Nation asserted that its use of the book was protected under the doctrine of fair use, because of the great public interest in a historical figure's account of a historic incident. The Court rejected this argument holding that the right of first publication was important enough to find in favor of Harper.

<i>Silveira v. Lockyer</i>

Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution did not guarantee individuals the right to bear arms. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 (AWCA), California legislation that banned the manufacture, sale, transportation, or importation of specified semi-automatic firearms. The plaintiffs alleged that various provisions of the AWCA infringed upon their individual constitutionally-guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Diane S. Sykes</span> American judge (born 1957)

Diane Schwerm Sykes is an American jurist and lawyer who serves as the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. She served as a justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court from 1999 to 2004.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Milan Smith</span> American judge

Milan Dale Smith Jr. is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Smith's brother, Gordon H. Smith, was a Republican U.S. Senator from 1997 to 2009. Milan Smith is neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 516 U.S. 233 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case that tested the extent of software copyright. The lower court had held that copyright does not extend to the user interface of a computer program, such as the text and layout of menus. Due to the recusal of one justice, the Supreme Court decided the case with an eight-member bench split evenly, leaving the lower court's decision affirmed but setting no national precedent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Morton Ira Greenberg</span> American judge (1933–2021)

Morton Ira Greenberg was a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on February 11, 1987 and was confirmed by the United States Senate on March 20, 1987. He assumed senior status on June 30, 2000.

Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright. In the case appealed, Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed.

Substantial similarity, in US copyright law, is the standard used to determine whether a defendant has infringed the reproduction right of a copyright. The standard arises out of the recognition that the exclusive right to make copies of a work would be meaningless if copyright infringement were limited to making only exact and complete reproductions of a work. Many courts also use "substantial similarity" in place of "probative" or "striking similarity" to describe the level of similarity necessary to prove that copying has occurred. A number of tests have been devised by courts to determine substantial similarity. They may rely on expert or lay observation or both and may subjectively judge the feel of a work or critically analyze its elements.

<i>Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.</i> United States district court case

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. was a case in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington regarding the applicability of the first-sale doctrine to software sold under the terms of so-called "shrinkwrap licensing." The court held that when the transfer of software to the purchaser materially resembled a sale it was, in fact, a "sale with restrictions on use" giving rise to a right to resell the copy under the first-sale doctrine. As such, Autodesk could not pursue an action for copyright infringement against Vernor, who sought to resell used versions of its software on eBay. The decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which issued a decision on September 10, 2010, reversing the first-sale doctrine ruling and remanding for further proceedings on the misuse of copyright claim. The Ninth Circuit's decision asserted that its ruling was compelled by Ninth Circuit precedent, but observed that the policy considerations involved in the case might affect motion pictures and libraries as well as sales of used software.

Meyer v. Grant, 486 U.S. 414 (1988), was an important decision by the United States Supreme Court on paid petition circulation. Colorado was one of several states with a process for citizens to propose initiatives for the ballot, which if passed became law. One of the requirements was to get the signatures of a significant number of registered Colorado electors. Colorado prohibited initiative sponsors from paying for the circulation of these petitions. The state argued this was necessary to "protect[...] the integrity of the initiative."

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 568 U.S. 519 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court copyright decision in which the Court held, 6–3, that the first-sale doctrine applies to copies of copyrighted works lawfully made abroad.

<i>Peruta v. San Diego County</i>

Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" before issuing a concealed carry permit.

<i>Veeck v. Southern Building Code Congress Intl</i>

Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Congress Int'l, Inc., 293 F.3d 791, was a 2002 en banc 9-6 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, about the scope of copyright protection for building codes and by implication other privately drafted laws adopted by states and municipal governments. A three-fifths majority of the court's fifteen judges held that copyright protection no longer applied to model codes once they were enacted into law.

Akamai Technologies, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, is a 2015 en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on remand from a 2014 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court reversing a previous Federal Circuit decision in the case. This is the most recent in a string of decisions in the case that concern the proper legal standard for determining patent infringement liability when multiple actors are involved in carrying out the claimed infringement of a method patent and no single accused infringer has performed all of the steps. In the 2015 remand decision, the Federal Circuit expanded the scope of vicarious liability in such cases, holding that one actor could be held liable for the acts of another actor "when an alleged infringer conditions participation in an activity or receipt of a benefit upon performance of a step or steps of a patented method and establishes the manner or timing of that performance." In addition, the court held that where multiple "actors form a joint enterprise, all can be charged with the acts of the other[s], rendering each liable for the steps performed by the other[s] as if each is a single actor."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Collective work (US)</span>

A collective work in the copyright law of the United States is a work that contains the works of several authors assembled and published into a collective whole. The owner of the work has the property rights in the collective work, but the authors of the individual works may retain rights in their contributions. Electronic reproduction of the whole work is allowed, but electronic reproduction of the individual works on their own, outside the context of the work as a whole, may constitute an infringement of copyright.

Wilson v. Sellers, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning whether a federal court sitting in a habeas corpus proceeding should "look through" a summary ruling to review the last reasoned decision by a state court.

References

  1. ↑ "Greenberg v. National Geographic Enterprises Inc". American Psychological Association.
  2. ↑ "Greenberg v. National Geographic Society (2008)". Association of Research Libraries.
  3. ↑ Greenberg v. National Geographic Society, 244F.3d1267 (11th Cir.2001)("We conclude that the unauthorized use of the Greenberg photographs in the CNG compiled and authored by the Society constitutes copyright infringement that is not excused by the privilege afforded the Society under § 201(c).").
  4. ↑ New York Times Co. v. Tasini , 533U.S.483 (2001)("The publishers are not sheltered by § 201(c), we conclude, because the databases reproduce and distribute articles standing alone and not in context, [...]").
  5. ↑ Faulkner v. National Geographic Enterprises, 409F.3d26 (2nd Cir.2005)("See Tasini, 206 F.3d at 167 (Section 201(c) "protects the use of an individual contribution in a collective work that is somewhat altered."). Tasini is in that regard contrary to Greenberg.").
  6. ↑ Greenberg v. National Geographic Society, 488F.3d1331 (11th Cir.2007)("We conclude that the Supreme Court's decision in Tasini established a new framework for applying the § 201(c) privilege that effectively overrules the earlier panel decision in this case.").
  7. ↑ Greenberg v. National Geographic Society, 497F.3d1213 (11th Cir.2007)("IT IS ORDERED that the above cause shall be reheard by this court en banc.").
  8. ↑ Greenberg v. National Geographic Society, 533F.3d1244 (11th Cir.2008)("In the light of the Supreme Court’s holding in Tasini that the bedrock of any § 201(c) analysis is contextual fidelity to the original print publication as presented to, and perceivable by, the users of the revised version of the original publication, we agree with the Second Circuit in Faulkner and find that National Geographic is privileged to reproduce and distribute the CNG under the “revision” prong of § 201(c).").
  9. ↑ Tishyevich, Dmitriy. "Eleventh Circuit Applies Copyright Act's Collective Works Provision to CD-ROM Collection". JOLT Digest. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology.
  10. ↑ "The Complete National Geographic". The National Geographic Society.
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.