Easterbrook on Copyright

IF 1.9 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Randal C. Picker
{"title":"Easterbrook on Copyright","authors":"Randal C. Picker","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1505613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this essay prepared in celebration of Judge Frank Easterbrook’s 25th year on the bench, I focus on what copyright students learn from him. Three of his dozen or so copyright opinions turn up repeatedly in copyright casebooks: Nash v. CBS, Inc.; Lee v. A.R.T. Co.; and ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg. This is a surprising success rate for a judge from the copyright-starved 7th Circuit. Judge Easterbrook has an eye for fundamental questions, writes opinions that are brief while treating issues fully and has a distinctively lively Easterbrookian style, one that he preserves by refusing to outsource his opinions to his clerks.Nash poses a key conceptual question: if only one person believes something to be a fact, is it a copyright fact? We confront the idiosyncratic fact, that is a claim of fact that may be believed by only one person and by no one else. Nash is casebook-worthy alone because of the factual situation it encompasses, as it is the law-school hypo come alive. The opinion nails down a key conceptual boundary question for copyright: copyright facts and actual facts may have little to do with each other.Lee answers the age-old question: what does glue do? Annie Lee created postcards of her original art. A.R.T. Co. glued postcards to tiles and sold them. In doing so, does A.R.T. violate Lee’s exclusive right to make derivative works as set forth in Section 106(2)? Lee is a refreshingly brief opinion, little more than five columns in F3d, yet, like Nash, it poses in simple fashion a basic question about the operation of copyright. Boundary cases are particularly important because legal analysis frequently builds off of what is taken as given: if x is right, then y must follow. Lee does exactly that for derivative works, an area of increasing importance for copyright.Finally. ProCD is one of Easterbrook’s best-known decisions, studied by contract students and copyright students alike. ProCD is the opinion that the copyright casebooks love to hate. Easterbrook validates the contract that limits the subsequent use of the ProCD database and wrestles with the tricky question of the interaction between copyright and contract.Student learn to pay close attention to the text of the copyright statute and to appreciate how that text operates in critical boundary settings. The opinions are written with a distinctive elan, with a little bit of law and economics thrown in, though less than you might expect given Frank’s deep academic roots. Students should understand that the business of deciding cases is a different one than of engaging in an abstract academic inquiry. Easterbrook on copyright is somehow a work of interest, fun and yet discipline all at the same time.","PeriodicalId":51436,"journal":{"name":"University of Chicago Law Review","volume":"79 1","pages":"1165"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2009-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Chicago Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1505613","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

In this essay prepared in celebration of Judge Frank Easterbrook’s 25th year on the bench, I focus on what copyright students learn from him. Three of his dozen or so copyright opinions turn up repeatedly in copyright casebooks: Nash v. CBS, Inc.; Lee v. A.R.T. Co.; and ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg. This is a surprising success rate for a judge from the copyright-starved 7th Circuit. Judge Easterbrook has an eye for fundamental questions, writes opinions that are brief while treating issues fully and has a distinctively lively Easterbrookian style, one that he preserves by refusing to outsource his opinions to his clerks.Nash poses a key conceptual question: if only one person believes something to be a fact, is it a copyright fact? We confront the idiosyncratic fact, that is a claim of fact that may be believed by only one person and by no one else. Nash is casebook-worthy alone because of the factual situation it encompasses, as it is the law-school hypo come alive. The opinion nails down a key conceptual boundary question for copyright: copyright facts and actual facts may have little to do with each other.Lee answers the age-old question: what does glue do? Annie Lee created postcards of her original art. A.R.T. Co. glued postcards to tiles and sold them. In doing so, does A.R.T. violate Lee’s exclusive right to make derivative works as set forth in Section 106(2)? Lee is a refreshingly brief opinion, little more than five columns in F3d, yet, like Nash, it poses in simple fashion a basic question about the operation of copyright. Boundary cases are particularly important because legal analysis frequently builds off of what is taken as given: if x is right, then y must follow. Lee does exactly that for derivative works, an area of increasing importance for copyright.Finally. ProCD is one of Easterbrook’s best-known decisions, studied by contract students and copyright students alike. ProCD is the opinion that the copyright casebooks love to hate. Easterbrook validates the contract that limits the subsequent use of the ProCD database and wrestles with the tricky question of the interaction between copyright and contract.Student learn to pay close attention to the text of the copyright statute and to appreciate how that text operates in critical boundary settings. The opinions are written with a distinctive elan, with a little bit of law and economics thrown in, though less than you might expect given Frank’s deep academic roots. Students should understand that the business of deciding cases is a different one than of engaging in an abstract academic inquiry. Easterbrook on copyright is somehow a work of interest, fun and yet discipline all at the same time.
伊斯特布鲁克谈版权
在这篇为庆祝弗兰克·伊斯特布鲁克法官任职25周年而写的文章中,我重点讨论了版权学生从他身上学到的东西。他的十几个版权意见书中有三个反复出现在版权案例中:纳什诉哥伦比亚广播公司案;李诉A.R.T.公司案;ProCD, Inc.诉Zeidenberg案。对于一个来自版权匮乏的第七巡回法院的法官来说,这是一个令人惊讶的成功率。伊斯特布鲁克法官对基本问题有敏锐的洞察力,他写的意见书简明扼要,但对问题处理得很全面,他有一种独特而生动的伊斯特布鲁克风格,他拒绝将自己的意见外包给他的书记员,从而保持了这种风格。纳什提出了一个关键的概念性问题:如果只有一个人相信某件事是事实,那么它是否属于版权事实?我们面对特殊的事实,这是一个事实的主张,可能只有一个人相信,没有其他人。《纳什》本身就有案卷价值,因为它包含了实际情况,因为它是法学院假设的现实。该意见明确了版权的一个关键概念边界问题:版权事实和实际事实之间可能没有什么关系。李回答了一个古老的问题:胶水有什么用?安妮·李用她的原创艺术创作了明信片。A.R.T.公司把明信片粘在瓷砖上出售。在这样做时,A.R.T.是否侵犯了第106(2)条规定的Lee制作衍生作品的专有权?李是一个令人耳目一新的简短观点,在F3d中只有5个专栏,然而,像纳什一样,它以简单的方式提出了一个关于版权运作的基本问题。边界案例尤其重要,因为法律分析经常建立在给定的基础上:如果x是正确的,那么y必须遵循。李对衍生作品就是这样做的,这是一个对版权越来越重要的领域。ProCD是伊斯特布鲁克最著名的决定之一,合同学生和版权学生都在研究它。ProCD的观点是,版权案件书爱恨。伊斯特布鲁克验证了限制后续使用ProCD数据库的合同,并努力解决版权和合同之间相互作用的棘手问题。学生学习密切关注版权法的文本,并欣赏文本在关键边界设置中的运作方式。这些观点是用一种独特的锐气写出来的,其中加入了一点法律和经济学,尽管考虑到弗兰克深厚的学术背景,这可能比你想象的要少。学生们应该明白,裁决案件与从事抽象的学术研究是不同的。伊斯特布鲁克关于版权的书是一部有趣的作品,同时也很有纪律性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
5.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: The University of Chicago Law Review is a quarterly journal of legal scholarship. Often cited in Supreme Court and other court opinions, as well as in other scholarly works, it is among the most influential journals in the field. Students have full responsibility for editing and publishing the Law Review; they also contribute original scholarship of their own. The Law Review"s editorial board selects all pieces for publication and, with the assistance of staff members, performs substantive and technical edits on each of these pieces prior to publication.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信