Copyright misuse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2008) |
 |
| Competition law |
|---|
| Basic concepts |
| Anti-competitive practices |
| Laws and doctrines |
Australia |
| Enforcement authorities and organizations |
Copyright misuse is an equitable defense against copyright infringement in the United States, based on the abusive or improper conduct of the copyright owner in enforcing the copyright. It is comparable to, and draws from precedents under, the older doctrine of patent misuse, which dates back to the early years of the 20th century.[1]
The doctrine forbids the copyright owner from attempting to extend the effect or operation of copyright beyond the scope of the statutory right, for example, by engaging in restrictive licensing practices) that are contrary to public policy, particularly the public policy of copyright law.[2] Courts do not permit a copyright owner that has engaged in misuse to enforce its copyright -- whether by securing of an injunction against infringers or collecting damages for infringement, until the misuse has been "purged" -- that is, the improper practice has been abandoned and its effects have fully dissipated.[3]
Copyright misuse is not a statutory defense set forth in the federal Copyright Act but is instead founded in federal case law derived from the patent misuse doctrine. One of the earliest copyright misuse precedents is a case in the Minnesota Federal District Court, M. Witmark & Sons v. Jensen.[4] The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit subsequently endorsed the copyright misuse doctrine in Lasercomb Am., Inc. v. Reynolds,[5] Other appellate decisions in the area include Video Pipeline, Inc. v. Buena Vista Home Entertainment[6] and Assessment Technologies v. WIREdata.[7]
The doctrine of copyright misuse derives ultimately from the longstanding equitable doctrine of "unclean hands", which bars a party from obtaining equitable relief (such as an injunction) against another when the party has acted improperly (though not necessarily illegally). Improper behaviour that may lead to a finding of copyright misuse includes (but is not limited to) anti-competitive activity. Restraints that hinder the promotion of the progress of human knowledge may be held copyright misuse, as in the Lasercomb case, which involved a restriction against development of improved computer code that might compete against the licensed code. Similar principles might condemn a restriction against exercise of fair use or against conduct protected under the First Amendment.
[edit] See also
- Copyfraud
- Kai Puolamäki, activist against copyright misuse in Finland
[edit] References
- ^ See Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502 (1917).
- ^ See, e.f., Lasercomb v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970, 978 (4th Cir. 1990) (“The question is . . . whether the copyright is being used in a manner violative of the public policy embodied in the grant of a copyright.”).
- ^ See generally B.B. Chem. Co. v. Ellis, 315 U.S. 495 (1942).
- ^ 80 F. Supp. 843 (D. Minn. 1948).
- ^ Lasercomb, 911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990). Lasercomb is generally considered the leading case.
- ^ 342 F.3d 191 (3d Cir. 2003).
- ^ 350 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2003). For a discussion of this case see IT Law Wiki.
