Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[RJack]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> On 2/22/2010 1:26 PM, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > Hyman, why^W you're retardedly jumping to the conclusion bypassing the
> > analysis of condition v. covenant v. scope restriction conundrum, why?
>
> <http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions/08-1001.pdf>
>     Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License
>     are enforceable copyright conditions, ...



"Not only did the court not state that “uses” that fall outside the
scope of the license would necessarily constitute a copyright violation,
but the allegedly unlawful “use” in that case was the copying of
architectural plans. Id. at 32; see Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys.
Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1167 (1st Cir. 1994). In light of their
facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely unremarkable principle
that “uses” that violate a license agreement constitute copyright
infringement only when those uses would infringe in the absence of any
license agreement at all." -- {CAFC)

"The scope of the nonexclusive license is, therefore, intentionally
broad. The condition that the user insert a prominent notice of
attribution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather, Defendants’
alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have
constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create
liability for copyright infringement where it would not otherwise exist.
Therefore, based on the current record before the Court, the Court finds
that Plaintiff’s claim properly sounds in contract and therefore
Plaintiff has not met his burden of demonstrating likelihood of success
on the merit of his copyright claim and is therefore not entitled to a
presumption of irreparable harm" -- (ND CA)

"Captain Moglen scared them out of the water!"
http://www.fini.tv/blog/finishing_line_files/a44f9390355368f87dc47b7ec094f93e-36.php

ROFL. ROFL. ROFL.

Sincerely,
RJack :)