Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/22/2010 5:50 PM, RJack wrote:
> An unlicensed use of the copyright is not an infringement unless it
> conflicts with one of the specific exclusive rights conferred by the
> copyright statute.

Here is what Judge White said, in his decision post CAFC:
<http://jmri.org/k/docket/395.pdf>
    Under the Copyright Act, a copyright owner is entitled
    to recover compensatory damages in the amount of actual
    damages suffered or the disgorgement of profits by the
    infringer attributable to the infringement. See 17 U.S.C.
    § 504(b). Although it is undisputed that Plaintiff
    distributed the copied work on the Internet at no cost,
    there is also evidence in the record attributing a
    monetary value for the actual work performed by the
    contributors to the JMRI project. (See Declaration of
    Victoria K. Hall in support of opposition, Ex. F (expert
    report of Michael A. Einhorn).)2 Because there are facts
    in the record which may establish a monetary damages
    figure, the Court finds Plaintiff has made a showing
    sufficient to establish the existence of a dispute of
    fact regarding the monetary value of Plaintiff’s work for
    purposes of his copyright claim. Accordingly, Defendants’
    motion for summary judgment on this basis is denied.

So even though Judge White is still fixated on monetary damage
despite what his appeals court told him, he nevertheless finds
that distributing a work for free on the internet does not free
infringers from copyright infringement claims.