UCHastings Instagram

Student-Alumni #BOB
Instagram Photo Likes chesc2015, cristalergy, liannemarcella and 24 others like this.
Tuesday, August 19, 2014

7th Circuit Cites Professor Ben Depoorter in Sherlock Holmes Copyright Law Suit

Second time this year Judge Posner has cited work by UC Hastings Research Chair and Professor of Law Ben Depoorter.
Sample alt tag.
Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees in an Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 13 C 1226 — Rubén Castillo, Chief Judge.

The 7th Circuit cited an article earlier this month by UC Hastings Research Chair and Professor of Law Ben Depoorter and (his former student) Robert Kirk Walker '13 in dismissing copyright infringement suit by the heirs of Sherlock Holmes and awarding attorney fee-shifting to the defendant.

Read the Opinion: Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, AUGUST 4, NO. 14-1128, 7th Cir. (2014)

Wrote POSNER, Circuit Judge:

This opinion is a sequel to Klinger v. Conan Doyle Estate, Ltd., 2014 WL 2726187 (7th Cir. June 16, 2014), where we held that Leslie Klinger was entitled to a declaratory judgment that he would not be infringing copyrights on fictional works published by Arthur Conan Doyle before 1923 by anthologizing stories written long after Doyle’s death in 1930 that feature Sherlock Holmes and other characters depicted in Doyle’s pre-1923 fiction. Even though the modern (post-Doyle) Sherlock Holmes stories copy copyrightable material in the pre-1923 fiction, the copyrights on that fiction, which cover copyrightable elements in it that include original depictions of characters (like Holmes and Dr. Watson), have expired. We rejected the Doyle estate’s argument that because stories published by Doyle between 1923 and his death—and still under copyright—depicted those characters in a more “rounded form” than found in the pre-1923 fiction, the “flat” characters of the earlier stories were protected by the copyrights still in force on the “rounded” characters of the later stories.

...Now Klinger asks us to order the Doyle estate to reimburse the attorneys’ fees he incurred in the appeal, amounting to $30,679.93. (He has filed a separate petition for fees and related costs incurred in his litigation in the district court, totaling $39,123.44. That petition is not before us.) The estate opposes Klinger’s request on the same hopeless grounds that it had urged in its appeal, but does not question the amount of fees as distinct from Klinger’s entitlement to an award of any amount of fees in this case.

Cite:

We’re not alone in expressing these concerns. See Michael J. Meurer, “Controlling Opportunistic and Anti–Competitive Intellectual Property Litigation,” 44 Boston College L. Rev. 509, 521 (2003). See also Ben Depoorter & Robert Kirk Walker, “Copyright False Positives,” 89 Notre Dame L. Rev. 319, 343-45 (2013), where we read that many persons or firms accused of copyright infringement find that “it is more cost-effective to simply capitulate” than to fight, even when the alleged claim is of dubious merit. Copyright holders, the authors explain, have larger potential upsides and smaller downside risks to filing suit, since if they win they obtain damages but if they lose they don’t have to pay damages (although a loss, especially if recorded in a published opinion as in this case, may make it more difficult for them to play their extortionate game in future cases). So copiers or alleged copiers may be “induced into licensing [that is, paying a fee for a license to reproduce] the underlying work, even if this license is unnecessary or conveys non-existent rights." Id. at 345. Depoorter and Walker (id. at 345 n. 172) give the example of the Summy-Brichard Company, a subsidiary of Warner Music Group, which “receives approximately $2 million per year in royalty payments for licenses to the song ‘Happy Birthday to You,’ despite the fact that the song is most likely in the public domain,” as argued in Robert Brauneis, “Copyright and the World’s Most Popular Song,” 56 J. Copyright Society U.S.A. 335, 338–40 (2009).

This marks the second time this year Judge Posner has cited work by Professor Depoorter. In Goesel v. Boley, the 7th Circuit discusses disclosure of settlements and refers to Depoorter’s article in Cornell Law Review, Law in the Shadow of Bargaining.

"As many other scholars, especially those in law and economics, I have spent my entire career citing the honorable Richard Posner," wrote Depoorter at the time. "One of the most prolific legal scholars ever, Posner has made insightful contributions in virtually all areas of law. Today however, I was informed by a colleague at UC Hastings that the favor had been returned to me."

Related:

###

Go to News Archive

Share this Story

Share via Facebook
Share via TwitterShare via EmailPrint Friendly Version

Other Recent Stories/ RSS

Thursday, March 05, 2015

Health Law Team Wins at Baltimore Competition

Students utilized practical experience in the pharmaceutical industry and self-study of health law to make their winning case.
Monday, March 02, 2015

National Cultural Heritage Moot Court Championship!

Team members Katherine Green '16, Nathaniel Ku '16 and Andrea Tool '16 triumphed by arguing two rounds on Friday and four rounds on Saturday to become the National Champions. Writeup by Assistant Dean Toni Young '76.
Monday, March 02, 2015

Professor Purcell Shares Mediation Expertise at Indian Conference

In India, mediation is a bright spot in an overwhelmed court system.
Saturday, February 28, 2015

4 Things I Learned From Justice Cuéllar

2L Anthony Rodriguez reflects on California Supreme Court Justice Tino Cuéllar's visit to UC Hastings.
Friday, February 27, 2015

Chancellor & Dean Emerita Mary Kay Kane Elected to Board of IALS

The International Association of Law Schools was founded in 2005 at the behest of legal educators who recognized the growing inter-relationship of norms from transnational legal systems.
Go to News Archive