Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kaffyne (talk | contribs) at 18:25, 22 October 2012 (→‎Impact: periods.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc.
CourtUnited States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Full case nameColumbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc.
ArguedAugust 14 1984
DecidedNovember 23 1984
Case history
Procedural historyAffirmed holding from 568 F.Supp. 494 (W.D. Pa. 1983)
Holding
The defendants' activities constituted an unauthorized public exhibition of the plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures, which is copyright infringement under §107 through § 118 of the Copyright Act.
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingRuggero J. Aldisert, Joseph F. Weis, Jr., Edward D. Re
Case opinions
MajorityEdward D. Re
Laws applied
Copyright Act of 1976

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc., was a copyright infringement case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The appeals court affirmed the decision of the district court to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and enjoin defendants from exhibiting plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures. [1]

Background

Maxwell's Video Showcase, Ltd. (Maxwell's) was a company that operated two video sale and rental stores in Erie, Pennsylvania. The stores had a small showroom area and showcase area. The showroom area contained video equipment and materials for sale or rental, but the showcase room, on the other hand, was used for patrons to view video contents in small booths with space for two to four people. The two stores had eighty-five booths in total. Customers who wanted to use the showcase facilities selected a film from a catalogue and the fee charged depended on the number of people in a viewing booth and the time of day. After they entered the booth, the motion picture of the selected film was transmitted to the viewing booth.[1]

The defendants appealed from an injunctive order made by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to stop performing plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures. Also, they appealed from an award of damages against plaintiffs in the amount of $44,750.00.[1]

Opinion

Maxwell's legally obtained the video copies either from Columbia Pictures Industries or their authorized distributors. However, defendants were not licensed to exercise the right of distribution. The court concluded that playing a video cassette clearly resulted in a showing of a motion picture's images and in making the sounds accompanying it audible, which was what to perform a work meant, thus, Maxwell's activities constituted a unlicensed performance of copyrighted works under section 101[2].[1]

The court also concluded the performance was made in public, though the viewers were in their small booths in Maxwell's facilities. This was because performance made available by transmission constituted a public performance, even if the recipients were not physically at the same place and in a private setting, according to section 101[2]. In addition, although Maxwell's had one copy of each copyrighted film, it has showed each of them repeatedly to viewers. Thus, this made the activity public under section 106 [3].[1]

The First Sale Doctrine

Maxwell's argued that the first sale doctrine [4] protected their right to operate the viewing booths. That is, their activities didn't require the copyright owner's authority. However, the court regarded the defendants' "first sale" argument as merely another aspect of their main argument that their activities were not public. This was because Maxwell's always maintained the ownership of the videotapes and the fees paid by patrons were for showcasing operation, but not for the physical dominion over the tapes.[1]

Liability of Co-Defendants

The court affirmed the holding made by the district court that Robert Zeny, Glenn W. Zeny, and Redd Horne, Inc,. were liable as co-infringers. This was mainly based on the holding that a person who had knowledge of the infringing activity and induced or contributed to the activity may be held liable as a 'contributory' infringer. [note 1]

Impact

There exist some critical viewpoints on the holding. David Mittleman argued that the existing framework on copyright infringement might discourage innovative applications on it so that it may contribute the copyright owner's monopoly. [5] A later copyright case Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. WTV Systems, Inc. drew on this opinion to determine that rental service Zediva's relationship with its customers constituted a public performance, effectively shutting down Zediva with a preliminary injunction.[6]

External Links

Notes

  1. ^ See Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, 749 F.2d 154 (3rd Cir. 1984).
  2. ^ a b 17 U.S.C. § 101
  3. ^ 17 U.S.C. § 106
  4. ^ 17 U.S.C. § 109
  5. ^ David Mittleman (1986). "Copyright Infringement: Small Booths Lead to Big Trouble for Video Stores". Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review. 6 (1): 147–159. Retrieved 29 September 2012.
  6. ^ Robinson, Daniel (2011). "Court Shuts Down DVD Streaming Service Zediva". Retrieved 28 September 2012.
  7. ^ Cushing, Tim (10 August 2011). "1984 Case Shows Abuse Of Phrase 'Public Performance' Has A Long, Ugly History". Retrieved 29 September 2012.
  8. ^ Haas, Merle (30 May 2012). "Associations & Music Licensing Fees". Retrieved 29 September 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Columbia_Pictures_Industries,_Inc._v._Redd_Horne,_Inc.&oldid=519245641"