Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

Sabotaging And Reconstructing History: A Comment On The Scope Of Copyright Protection In Works Of History After Hoehling V. Universal City Studios, Jane C. Ginsburg

Faculty Scholarship

This comment examines the Hoehling decision, and attempts a definition, in light of Hoehling and prior decisions, of historical "expression." A definition of historical expression is essential to analysis of an historian's infringement claim. Before the fact-finder determines whether a defendant's work is substantially similar to the historian's work, and if substantially similar, whether the fair use doctrine excuses the apparent infringement, the trial judge must first determine whether, as a matter of law, the portions the historian claims were infringed manifest copyrightable expression. If there is no or insufficient expression, the case closes at the summary judgment stage.

This …

Fair Use As Market Failure: A Structural And Economic Analysis Of The Betamax Case And Its Predecessors, Wendy J. Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

In the recent and much publicized Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of America (Betamax) case, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that persons who make videotapes of copyrighted television programs in the privacy of their homes should be considered to be copyright infringers. Basic to the court's reasoning was a misunderstanding of the "fair use" doctrine. Called "the most troublesome [doctrine] in the whole law of copyright," "fair use" renders noninfringing certain uses of copyrighted material that might technically violate the statute, but which do not violate the statute's basic purposes.

First Amendment Protection For Commercial Advertising: The New Constitutional Doctrine, Thomas W. Merrill

Faculty Scholarship

Governmental regulation of commercial advertising has become a major focus of challenges to established first amendment doctrine. An increasing number of suits have raised constitutional objections to regulations of false or deceptive advertising, regulations of offensive advertising, prohibitions of commercial advertising in certain forums, prohibitions of price advertising for particular products or services, and prohibitions of all advertising for particular products or services.' Until recently, the majority of courts upheld such regulations under the Supreme Court's ruling in Valentine v. Chrestensen that "purely commercial advertising" is unprotected by the first amendment.

In the last two years the Court has subjected …