Have We Seen the Limits of Fair Use?
After years of protracted litigation, including two jury trials and two appeals, Google and Oracle are now destined for yet another trial arising from Google's alleged unauthorized use of 37 of Oracle's Java application programming interfaces (APIs) in the Android smartphone operating system.
March 28, 2018 at 01:28 PM
5 minute read
After years of protracted litigation, including two jury trials and two appeals, Google and Oracle are now destined for yet another trial arising from Google's alleged unauthorized use of 37 of Oracle's Java application programming interfaces, or APIs, in the Android smartphone operating system. Finding that Google's use of Java APIs did not constitute fair use as a matter of law, on March 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the trial court's judgment in favor of Google and remanded for a trial on damages.
While the decision ensures that the ongoing saga between Google and Oracle will no doubt continue to fascinate software developers who have been following the case with great interest, one of the most fascinating aspects of the case from an intellectual property law standpoint is that the case may come to represent a shift in the way that courts approach copyright fair use cases.
The proliferation of content on the internet has brought with it a number of common misconceptions regarding fair use. Setting aside those misconceptions, fair use is fundamentally a statutorily recognized defense to be asserted in response to a claim of infringement. As codified, fair use involves consideration of four factors to assess whether a particular use is a fair use: “the purpose or character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and the effect of the use upon the potential market for or the value of the copyrighted work.”
For better or worse, fair use as codified often raises more questions than it answers. Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has cautioned that fair use calls for a case-by-case analysis and “is not to be simplified with bright-line rules.”
Over the last 25 years or so, courts have produced a variety of decisions that expanded the application of fair use.
In the '90s, a copyright infringement suit involving the rap music group 2 Live Crew and the owner of the rights to Roy Orbison's popular song, “Oh, Pretty Woman,” resulted in a Supreme Court decision that parody — which the rap version of the song was considered — can support a finding of fair use. In reaching its decision, the Supreme Court considered the origins of fair use and observed that “in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things which in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout.”
Fast forward to the last ten years, during which time courts continued to expand the scope of fair use recognized by the Supreme Court in the “Oh, Pretty Woman” case.
When photographer Patrick Cariou sued appropriation artist Richard Prince for copyright infringement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Prince's artwork did not need to comment on Cariou's original works or the author of those works to constitute fair use.
Similarly, when artist Dereck Selzter sued the band Green Day for using a modified version of one of Seltzer's drawings, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the band's use of the artwork in a music video was transformative in nature and hence fair use. In reaching its decision, the Ninth Circuit found that “with the spray-painted cross applied to the face of Seltzer's artwork, in the context of a song about the hypocrisy of religion, surrounded by religious iconography, [Green Day's] video backdrop using Seltzer's artwork conveys 'new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings' that are plainly distinct from those of the original artwork.”
While each of these decisions, in one way or another, broadened the scope of what constitutes fair use, the Federal Circuit's opinion in the Google/Oracle case represents what may ultimately prove to be the limit of fair use. Quoting some of the same language from the “Oh, Pretty Woman” decision, the Federal Circuit, concluded that Google's use of the 37 APIs was “not fair as a matter of law.” However, the Federal Circuit was also careful to limit the possible impact of its decision, even stating expressly that it was not foreclosing the possibility that a fair use defense could potentially apply “in an action involving the copying of computer code.”
It is too early to tell whether the Federal Circuit's decision will set the stage for the Supreme Court to revisit the fair use doctrine. Since the decision is, in certain respects, at odds with the decisions from the Second and Ninth Circuit courts mentioned above, such a split would typically justify the Supreme Court's review. Time will tell whether the Federal Circuit's decision represents a true limitation on fair use.
This much, however, is certain: as courts have recognized, fair use is likely to continue to be “the most troublesome [doctrine] in the whole law of copyright,” and a distinct challenge for those practitioners who pursue or defend claims of copyright infringement.
Samuel Lewis is a member of Cozen O'Connor in Miami. He focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation and transactional matters. Contact him at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250