| Eh71intprop/draft | |
|---|---|
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit |
| Full case name | Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc. |
| Argued | August 14 1984 |
| Decided | November 23 1984 |
| Case history | |
| Procedural history | Affirmed holding from 568 F.Supp. 494 (W.D. Pa. 1983) |
| Holding | |
| The defendants' activities constituted an unauthorized public exhibition of the plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures, which is copyright infringement under §107 through § 118 of the Copyright Act. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Ruggero J. Aldisert, Joseph F. Weis, Jr., Edward D. Re |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Edward D. Re |
| Laws applied | |
| Copyright Act of 1976 | |
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, Inc., was a copyright infringement case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [1]. The appeals court affirmed the decision of the district court to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and enjoin defendants from exhibiting plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures.
Background
editMaxwell's Video Showcase, Ltd., (Maxwell's) was a company that operated two video sale and rental stores in Erie, Pennsylvania. The stores had a small showroom area and showcase area. The showroom area contains video equipment and materials for sale or rental and the showcase room, on the other hand, was used for patrons to view video contents in small booths with space for two to four people. The two store had eighty five booths in total. Their customers who wanted to use the showcase facilities selected a film fro a catalogue and the fee charged depended on the number of people in a viewing booth and the time of day. After they entered the booth, the motion picture of the selected film is transmitted to the viewing booth.
The defendants appealed from an injunctive order made by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania that they should stop performing plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures. Also, they appealed from an award of damages against plaintiffs in the amount of $44,750.00.
Opinion
editMaxwell's legally obtained the video copies either from Columbia Pictures Industries or their authorized distributors. However, defendants were not licensed to exercise the right of distribution. The court concluded that playing a video cassette clearly results in a showing of a motion picture's images and in making the sounds accompanying it audible, which is what to perform a work means, thus, Maxwell's activities constitute a unlicensed performance of copyrighted works under section 101[2].
The court also concluded the performance was made in public, though the viewers were in their small booths in Maxwell's facilities. This is because performance made available by transmission constitues a public performance, even if the recipients are not physically at the same place, according to section 101[2]. In addition, although Maxwell's had one copy of each copyrighted film, it has showed each of them repeatedly to viewers. Thus, this makes the activity public under section 106 [3].
The First Sale Doctrine
editMexwell's argued that the first sale doctrine [4] protects their right to operate the viewing booths. That is, their activities don't require the copyright owner's authority. However, the court regarded the defendants' "first sale" argument as merely another aspect of their main argument that their activities were not public. This is because Maxwell's always maintained the ownership of the video tapes and the fees paid by patrons were for showcasing operation, but not for the physical dominion over the tapes.
Liability of Co-Defendants
editThe court affirmed the holding made by the district court that Robert Zeny, Glenn W. Zeny, and Redd Horne, Inc,. are liable as co-infringers. This is mainly based on the holding that a person who has knowledge of the infringing activity and induces or contributes to the activity may be held liable as a 'contributory' infringer (Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management) [5]
Impact
editThere exist some critical viewpoints on the holding including Mittleman's; the existing framework on copyright infringement might discourage innovative applications on it so that it may contribute the copyright owner's monopoly [6].
External Links
editReferences
edit- ^ Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Redd Horne, 749 F.2d 154 (3rd Cir. 1984).
- ^ a b 17 U.S.C. § 101
- ^ 17 U.S.C. § 106
- ^ 17 U.S.C. § 109
- ^ Gershwin Publishing Corp. v. Columbia Artists Management, 443 F.2d 1159 (2rd Cir. 1971).
- ^ David Mittleman (1986). "Copyright Infringement: Small Booths Lead to Big Trouble for Video Stores". Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review. 6 (1): 147–159. Retrieved 29 September 2012.
- ^ Cushing, Tim (10 August 2011). "1984 Case Shows Abuse Of Phrase 'Public Performance' Has A Long, Ugly History". Retrieved 29 September 2012.
- ^ Haas, Merle (30 May 2012). "Associations & Music Licensing Fees". Retrieved 29 September 2012.