Huge Ruling: Court Says Proving Copyright Infringement Does Not Automatically Mean Irreperable Harm

Mike Masnick — Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:53:09 PDT

We've noted in the past that Perfect 10's myriad lawsuits alleging copyright infringement against all sorts of companies haven't resulted in many victories for the company, but have established a set of case law rulings that have been very helpful in defining clear exceptions within copyright law, which have been quite useful in other cases. The only really questionable Perfect 10 ruling I can think of is the one we just mentioned earlier this week, in which a court seemed to get confused concerning the difference between direct and indirect copyright infringement, but I'm hopeful that this will get sorted out soon enough.

However in a different Perfect 10 case, a part of its long and almost entirely failed campaign against Google, we have a fantastic appeals court (9th Circuit) ruling that could be quite a big deal, in reversing previous precedent and noting that a showing of copyright infringement does not automatically prove "irreparable harm," and that it also should not mean an automatic preliminary injunction is applied in such cases (thanks to Eric Goldman for pointing us to the ruling).

The ruling is significant for a number of reasons. Obviously, for a court to change its position on things, it needs a good reason to do so and, here, the court relies on the very important Supreme Court ruling in the MercExchange case, in which it noted that defaulting to a preliminary injunction in patent cases did not make sense. Instead, a court should consider a variety of factors and whether or not there was real harm that required an injunction. In this case, the court has now applied the same reasoning to copyright law for the first time. This isn't entirely surprising, since the MercExchange ruling by the Supreme Court actually relied somewhat on copyright law itself, but there had not yet been a clear ruling on whether the MercExchange decision applied to copyright. We did note, last year, that the Second Circuit appeals court had raised the question of whether or not MercExchange applied to copyright, and had sent the case back to a lower court to consider. In this case, however, we have a firm ruling (which also acknowledges that Second Circuit ruling) that MercExchange also applies to copyright:

We agree with the Second Circuit. As explained in eBay, the language of § 502(a) is permissive and evokes traditional equitable principles: “[T]he Copyright Act provides that courts ‘may’ grant injunctive relief ‘on such terms as [they] may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright.’ ” 547 U.S. at 392 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 502(a)). Nothing in the statute indicates congressional intent to authorize a “major departure” from “the traditional four-factor framework that governs the award of injunctive relief,” id. at 391, 394, or to undermine the equitable principle that such relief is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that “is never awarded as of right,” Munaf v. Green, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). We therefore conclude that the propriety of injunctive relief in cases arising under the Copyright Act must be evaluated on a case-by- case basis in accord with traditional equitable principles and without the aid of presumptions or a “thumb on the scale” in favor of issuing such relief.

And, more specifically, the court states directly (citations & quotation marks omitted for clarity):

In sum, we conclude that our longstanding rule that a showing of a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits in a copyright infringement claim raises a presumption of irreparable harm is clearly irreconcilable with the reasoning of the Court’s decision in eBay and has therefore been effectively overruled.

In other words, just showing copyright infringement no longer means a presumption of irreparable harm (in the Ninth Circuit, at least). Since many of us have argued for years that infringement does not automatically lead to harm, this ruling is big news.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Catcher In The Rye Sequel Fight Could Lead To Forced Licensing Rather Than Injunctions In Some Copyright Suits

Mike Masnick — Mon, 3 May 2010 08:57:00 PDT

You may remember that last year, before he died, JD Salinger sued the author of an unofficial "sequel" to The Catcher in the Rye, called Coming Through the Rye, which had already been published overseas, but was slated for publication in the US. Pretty much everyone agrees that this unofficial sequel isn't particularly good, and it likely would have quickly faded into obscurity if Salinger hadn't brought the lawsuit. Instead, however, a court banned the publication of the book, claiming it was copyright infringement.

This is massively troubling if you believe in the First Amendment. Just think about it for a second: this is a book that was published around the world, but is banned in the US -- the supposed bastion of freedom of speech and expression.

The problem is that, despite the fact that copyright is supposed to recognize the difference between the idea and the expression (and only protect the specific expression), lately the courts have been blurring that distinction massively. If you honestly believe that copyright only protects the expression -- as the courts have said -- then someone creating a totally different expression should not... no, cannot be barred. But, the reality is that many people -- including some judges -- don't seem to recognize the difference between an idea and an expression, and what copyright is supposed to cover.

Anyway, Esahc points us to the news that the lawsuit has been sent back to the district court by the appeals court, to determine whether or not the publication of the unauthorized sequel would cause any "harm" to the original publication. However, the reasoning here is a bit surprising. The court did not find any problems with the copyright infringement ruling -- and, in fact, claimed that it thought Salinger (and his estate) would likely prevail on that point if the case was appealed.

Instead, the Appeals Court simply questioned whether or not the injunction was the proper response to the infringement, and told the lower court to apply the rules the Supreme Court set out in the MercExchange ruling four years ago. This is a bit surprising, since MercExchange focused on whether or not injunctions were the proper response in patent cases, not necessarily copyright -- but it does appear that various courts have been trying to apply MercExchange to other types of cases. As such, the test that the court needs to decide is whether or not Salinger's estate would suffer "irreparable harm," if the publication of the unauthorized sequel went forward. That might be a very difficult standard to live up to, as I can't see any harm at all caused by the sequel (in fact, I would imagine the opposite would occur, in that it would drive more interest in the older book).

So what might that mean? If the MercExchange patent rulings are any indication, if the courts find that the unauthorized sequel did infringe on copyrights, it could require the author and his publisher to pay a set fee to the Salinger estate, and still allow the publication -- creating a de facto compulsory license. Actually, the book No Law, has argued that just such a result would actually bring copyright law much more in line with the First Amendment -- allowing people to be free to express themselves, but requiring they pay up if they infringe. However, it would represent a pretty major shift in copyright law. You can read the full decision below -- and here's a press release from the publisher, hyping up the ruling much more than it deserves. The Salinger estate will almost certainly push for the injunction to be put back in place, and we'll have to see what the court decides, before we know if this book ever gets published in the US. But just the fact that it's saying the MercExchange rules should be used for copyright infringements is a big, big deal.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt. Stories filed under "mercexchange"

Huge Ruling: Court Says Proving Copyright Infringement Does Not Automatically Mean Irreperable Harm

Catcher In The Rye Sequel Fight Could Lead To Forced Licensing Rather Than Injunctions In Some Copyright Suits