The data of the case are quite easy. DynaStudy created some exam guides. These courses have been reputedly beneficial, so Houston high school bought some, made copies, and then distributed them to students. The take a look at courses included a specific assertion at the bottom, “Copying this fabric is precisely prohibited.” A trainer pointed this statement out to the major, who brushed off the issues, and the instructor responded through email, “I’m good enough with violating it even though. Lol.” Additional emails were included in the proof in the litigation. In some instances, employees cropped out or covered up DynaStudy’s logo and the copyright warnings, then distributed those copies throughout the district. Some copies ended up some distance beyond the Houston college district, and the manual became publicly posted online in states as some distance as New Jersey.
This case is a pretty egregious case of copyright infringement, with directors and educators either absolutely ignorant of copyright law or aware and content to ignore the ramifications. Neither willful blindness nor blatant disregard for copyright law plays well in copyright cases. Let’s start with the trainer’s emailed response. Of course, that email was going to turn out to be in discovery. A jury isn’t going to appear favorably on a blatant admission that a person is “good enough with violating” copyright. Additionally, the reality that instructors eliminated DynaStudy’s emblem and cropped out or obscured the copyright assertion appears to suggest that they have been reproducing and dispensing the works with complete knowledge that they were probably violating copyright law.
Goodbye, harmless infringement protection, hey, statutory damages. Remember that the Copyright Act requires a court to remit statutory damages where a worker of a nonprofit educational group — like an educational institution — appearing in the scope of his employment, believed that his duplicate of copyrighted works became into honest use. Clearly, no longer the case here, and the final jury verdict awarding DynaStudy $nine.2 million confirmed that blatant push aside for copyright outcomes in predominant damages. Attorneys representing the Houston school district tried to say that the staffers were unaware that they had violated copyright. Again, certainly not the case, given the e-mail exchanges DynaStudy used to reinforce their claims.
The legal professionals additionally attempted to say that the duplication and distribution constituted truthful use. Any ordinary readers of this weekly column will know that I’m a huge fan of truthful use. I accept that strong use of honest proper use is important in ensuring stability within the U.S. Copyright system, especially as we normally see a one-way ratchet in growing the rights of rightsholders, not customers. But this case is, in reality, not an honest use case.
Sometimes, human beings mistakenly assume that any instructional use may be considered fair use. This idea is a myth. While the truthful use statute, codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act, does observe that a valid honest use motive ought to include “coaching (inclusive of multiple copies for lecture room use)” and the primary component notes that one consideration is “whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,” courts need to apply the four factors still to decide whether or not that precise use is fair. Not all educational uses are honest uses; in any other case, textbooks wouldn’t be valued so much. If all school supplies had been truthful, a teacher should purchase one copy of a biology textbook at $120 and make ninety copies for each of his freshman biology students.
Applying the 4 factors, it’s clear that the Houston faculty district’s use falls quickly. While the motive and individual of the use should favor the college district, the 1/3 element (the amount and substantiality of the component used regarding the complete) might weigh against the use. The school district essentially copied the entire other manual in place of excerpting a small element. They used the entire guide — besides which they removed DynaStudy’s brand and copyright caution — and did nothing to adapt or rework the paintings.
The fourth element — the effect of the use on the potential marketplace — additionally definitely weighs in opposition to the user because the proliferation of copies and distribution to students meant that neither the school district nor the students (or mother and father of the students) had been purchasing these guides from DynaStudy. I absolutely bear in mind purchasing similar laminated look at guides after becoming a high school student for chemistry, calculus, Spanish, and other subjects. Would I even have spent my tough-earned money on those courses if I had been given copies without cost by my faculty? Probably no longer. I might’ve used that money to visit the movies or have smoothies with my friends.
