« Garden State Blawg | Main | More on The Washingtonienne »
June 25, 2005
Contributory and Vicarious Infringement
I make no claims to the following text, the copyright owner is a fellow classmate from law school, who I sat next to during copyright class and who provided me with a copy of his outline, since I neither bought the book nor took notes during class; and yet somehow received an A+ for my efforts on the final exam. Go figure.
Professor Patry took that semester off, so my copyright prof was a Real Property professor by the name of Stewart Sterk:
- A vicarious liability claim can only be brought against someone with a right and ability to supervise an infringer. DemetriadesDo any of those hypos apply to Grokster?
- A contributory infringement claim can only be brought against one who, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another. Demetriades
- Neither mere knowledge of nor benefit from infringement makes you liable under either type of infringement unless you’re responsible for actor in some way or helped him.
- When a magazine publishes a stolen work with a registered ©, it is a contributory infringer. If the work is unregistered, it is vicariously liable (has no knowledge but is still responsible for its contributors)
- Reasons to find vicarious or contributory liability: so people in a position to control what they sell and select who they deal with use discretion, and do their best to know the origins of income they receive from another party via rent, profits, etc.
- 3 Hypos: 1)Flea mkt that rents to bootlegger may be contributorily liable, because it has ability (and should be encouraged) to know what it’s “tenants” are selling. 2) Operators of concert hall where singer decides to unlawfully perform a cover is vicariously liable, because it had a right to supervise who plays what in its hall (and if band was a big name, hall operator could draft K to make singer liable for its damages). 3) Radio station advertises a music store that sells bootlegs, but whose inventory the station is unaware of. The station isn’t liable vicariously, because it can’t control what advertisers sell. It’s not contributorily liable, because it has no knowledge.
Posted by Kevin at June 25, 2005 02:27 AM