Creative Commons License Doesn't Bind Commercial Printers, Ninth Circuit Rules
An educational nonprofit argued that Office Depot was violating terms of the popular internet license, but Latham & Watkins and Winston & Strawn persuaded the court to take a more narrow view.
December 27, 2019 at 08:14 PM
4 minute read
Winston & Strawn and Latham & Watkins have sprung Office Depot—and, potentially, millions of other users—from potential liability for reproducing material licensed via Creative Commons.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Friday that Office Depot didn't violate an educational nonprofit's copyright by copying, for a fee, classroom materials that are freely licensed for non-commercial uses.
Nonprofit Great Minds sells its "Eureka Math" curriculum in print form and makes digital files available for download under Creative Commons' Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License. That license states that "you are free to" copy and redistribute material so long as appropriate credit is given and the use is noncommercial.
Office Depot advertises its copying services to schools that use Eureka Math. At one time Office Depot paid royalties to Eureka Math, but it stopped doing so after a federal court in New York ruled that the Creative Commons license did not preclude teachers from hiring a third party to make copies, even if the copying service made a profit.
The Ninth Circuit adopted much of the same reasoning Friday in Great Minds v. Office Depot. "A licensee's hiring of a third-party copy service to reproduce licensed material strictly for the licensee's own permitted use does not turn that third party into a licensee that is bound to the license terms," Judge Jerome Farris wrote for a unanimous panel.
Creative Commons was founded in the early 2000s by IP scholars looking to create an alternative to the internet's default setting of "all rights reserved." The free, off-the-shelf licenses let authors signal to the world that anyone is legally free to use their works so long as certain conditions are satisfied.
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett counsel Christopher Sprigman argued to the court last month that "the licensee is 'you,' which means, literally, you and me and everyone else on the planet who copies Eureka Math."
The Ninth Circuit judges pointed out at argument and in their opinion that under that reading, school teachers or staff could make copies on a school-owned copier, but couldn't pay a high school student to do the labor. Sprigman argued that Great Math wouldn't sue high school students. Its concern is that it can't compete with a national, for-profit copying company.
Latham partner Andrew Gass, representing Creative Commons as amicus curiae pro bono, told the court that the same license covers 150 million works around the world. "So Great Minds' generous offer not to file suit" against high school students would be "small solace" to other users who could be affected by the Ninth Circuit's ruling, he said.
"The court shouldn't be distracted by Creative Commons' presence as an amicus today," Sprigman argued. "If the court needs help from Creative Commons in interpreting the language of the license," then the case should not have been dismissed on the pleadings, he argued.
Ultimately, the court ruled that it's clear schools may contract for copying under the license without imposing independent liability on Office Depot.
"Great Minds' interpretation cannot be correct," Farris wrote. "The license itself provides no basis to distinguish between permitted copies of Eureka Math made by a licensee's own employees (e.g., school teachers or staff) versus those made by a third-party contractor (e.g., Office Depot employees). We decline to read such a distinction into the License."
Ninth Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown and U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall, visiting from the Northern District of Illinois, concurred.
Winston & Strawn partner Jennifer Golinveaux argued the appeal for Office Depot. "This is an important copyright decision regarding the scope of the widely used Creative Commons Public License," Golinveaux said in a written statement. "We welcomed the opportunity to represent Office Depot in this matter, as well as the participation of Creative Commons as amicus on the appeal."
Winston's team also included partners Diana Hughes Leiden and Jeffrey Wilkerson, of counsel Thomas Kearney, and associates Irina Lyapis and Alyse Ritvo.
Gass worked with Latham associates Elizabeth Yandell, Kris Hanson and Ivana Dukanovic.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWith AI Research Clustered in Hot Spots, Left-Out Regions Could Become Economic 'Deserts'
5 minute readMorgan Lewis Grows ESG Group, Adding Legal VP of Fidelity Foundations
It's 'Google v. Oracle' All Over Again at the 2nd Circuit
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250