Talk:Cambridge University Press v. Patton
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of California, Berkeley supported by WikiProject Cyberlaw and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.|
Since this case has not yet been decided (although summary judgment was granted on vicarious and direct liability), I do not think it belongs in the case law categories or the copyright case law list. PacificWonderland (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Consider adding this seal to the infobox as it is in the public domain (U.S. federal government produced): https://ecf.gand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/ShowIndex.pl Boaltie (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the amended complaint/answer are more useful as references. I recommend removing the original complaint/answer entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boaltie (talk • contribs) 20:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Statutory Interpretation Editorial Language in Last Sentence of Article
I'm removing the sentence "This statement defies the logic of the law, because the fact is that fair use has been a part of the actual statute since the Copyright Act of 1976"
Please see Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. The Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539, 549 (1985). Not only is this sentence poorly worded, it accuses the concurring judge of exactly what it is guilty. Further, it is merely editorial without a source. Judge Vinson is correct in stating "fair use analysis does not require conventional statutory interpretation," because fair use is a common law doctrine and "Congress meant 'to restate the present judicial doctrine of fair use, not to change, narrow, or enlarge it in any way' and intended that courts continue the common-law tradition of fair use adjudication." Id.