Category: Copyright
 By: Jesus Hernandez, Blog Editor/Contributor  
TitleAm. Broad. Co. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 13-461 (June 25, 2014).
IssueWe must decide whether respondent Aereo, Inc., infringes [the] exclusive right [to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance of a copyrighted work to the public] by selling its subscribers a technologically complex service that allows them to watch television programs over the Internet at about the same time as the programs are broadcast over the air. 
Am. Broad. Co. at *1 (text added).
Holding[H]aving considered the details of Aereo’s practices, we find them highly similar to those of the CATV systems in Fortnightly and Teleprompter. And those are activities that the 1976 amendments sought to bring within the scope of the Copyright Act. Insofar as there are differences, those differences concern not the nature of the service that Aereo provides so much as the technological manner in which it provides the service. We conclude that those differences are not adequate to place Aereo’s activities outside the scope of the Act. For these reasons, we conclude that Aereo “perform[s]” petitioners’ copyrighted works “publicly,” as those terms are defined by the Transmit Clause.
Id. at *17-18.

Editor Comments
For further insight, check out the Audio Brief of oral arguments in Am. Broad. Co. v. Aereo, Inc. by clicking here.
Category: Copyright
By: Jesus Hernandez, Blog Editor/Contributor  
Category: Copyright
 By: Jesus Hernandez, Blog Editor/Contributor  
TitleAmerican Inst. of Physics v. Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A., Civ. No. 12-528 (RHK/JJK) (Minn. July 30, 2013).
Issue"[...] Publishers allege that by getting [scientific Article] copies without paying for a license, and by making internal copies within the law firm [for submission to USPTO], Schwegman infringed the Publishers’ copyrights. Both Schwegman and the USPTO assert that Schwegman’s copying of the Articles constitutes a non-infringing 'fair use.'” American Inst. of Physics, at *3-4.
Holding"Having weighed all these factors, this Court concludes that Schwegman is entitled to the fair use defense as a matter of law. The record demonstrates no genuine dispute that Schwegman’s use of the Articles was new and different than and did not merely supersede the original purpose of the Articles. Also, the undisputed facts demonstrate that the nature of the Articles is predominantly informational. Further, although Schwegman did make complete copies of the Articles in its patent prosecution practice, the only reasonable inference to draw from the record is that Schwegman’s copying of the Articles was consistent with the new and different purpose and character of Schwegman’s use. And there is no evidence to suggest that Schwegman’s copying impacted a traditional, reasonable, or likely to be developed market for the Articles. Thus, all four fair use factors weigh in favor of finding that Schwegman’s use in this matter is fair as a matter of law." American Inst. of Physics, at *40.

© 2000-2023, Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society
Disclaimer & Privacy Policy