RE: Re: Briefs On Westlaw/Lexis

From: Grierson, Kevin <kgrierson[_at_]wilsav.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:30:01 -0400

I am curious as to what you mean by a "public record." In "The Wind Done Gone" copyright infringement case, I'm sure that the entire text of the purported infringing work was submitted as an exhibit and thus made part of the "public record." Yet I doubt that anyone would consider that the submission of the text of that novel renders it a "public document," entitled to be freely copied by anyone (i.e. in the public domain).  

Let's take Westlaw's program to the next logical step--suppose, instead of sorting briefs by case, they actually broke the briefs up by point of law addressed and sold the pieces separately. Would that be OK?  

I submit that documents submitted to a court, whether pleadings or exhibits, retain their copyright and are subject to the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act. They can be examined, and relevant portions copied for uses permitted by the fair use doctrine, but they are not submitted wholesale to the public domain and freely copyable for any purpose.  

My two cents,  

Kevin

---

        From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property [mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of JFN

	Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 1:00 PM
	To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
	Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: Briefs On Westlaw/Lexis
	
	
	It's been a long time, but I don't remember anything in the

Princeton case holding that copying by the students would be fair use, but that they could not hire someone to do it for them. I would not emphasize fair use in my defense of Westlaw -- to the extent I relied on fair use, I would the fourth factor and contrast the availability of a licensing scheme for Princeton Univ. Press reprints against the lack of an alternative market for lawyers' used briefs -- but the fact that the students are "allowed" to make their own copies is because Princeton isn't going to bother suing them, and doesn't mean that it's fair use. The main difference between Princeton Univ. Press and a lawyer filing a brief is that the public is entitled to copy public records, and logically entitled to hire someone to do it for them.

        John Noble

        At 3:35 PM -0400 8/19/05, Roland Cole wrote:

                John et al.                 

                I read the Princeton University Press case as directly contrary to this one

                statement of John's. The fact that A is allowed to copy something does NOT

                mean that B can do it for A, with or without a payment to B.                 

                Now, if court pleadings are deemed "pledged to the public domain," the issue

                is moot. If they are deemed "licensed for copying and distribution" by the

                act of filing itself, then the question is the scope of the license. It

                could be held (as has been in some contexts) that the assumed license

                (and/or "fair use") is for the "scholar" to make one copy for further study.

                That understanding would NOT extend to selling copies to 3rd parties.                 

                On the other hand, much of the US works on the "do it until told no"

                principle, so I suspect West will provide this service until and unless they

                lose a court case over it.                 

                As John said elsewhere, the courts, maybe all the way to the Supreme Court,

                will have the final word.                 

		Roland J. Cole, J.D., Ph.D.
		Executive Director
		Software Patent Institute
		5315 Washington Blvd
		INDIANAPOLIS IN 46220-3062
		317-727-8940; cole[_at_]spi.org; www.spi.org
		
		-----Original Message-----
		From: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
		[mailto:CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org] On Behalf Of JFN
		Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 3:41 PM
		To: CNI-COPYRIGHT -- Copyright & Intellectual Property
		Subject: [CNI-(C)] Re: Briefs On Westlaw/Lexis
		
		.... Assuming that the public has a right to inspect
		and copy court files, I can't see an infringement claim
based on
		Westlaw providing that service for a fee.
		
		...
		
		John Noble
		
		
		
	
#############################################################
		This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
		  the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
		To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
		To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to
<CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
		To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to
<CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
		To postpone your subscription, E-mail to
<CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
		Send administrative queries to

<CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>                 

                Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at <https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.  

This message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s) and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product or otherwise protected by applicable law. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender at 757-628-5500 and delete this message.

CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: This communication is not a tax opinion. Pursuant to Internal Revenue Service regulations, to the extent that this contains tax advice, it is not intended or written to be used by a taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. Received on Tue Aug 23 2005 - 00:30:01 GMT