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, October 19, 2017

          UC Hastings Law Receives $1 Million Gift from Shanin Specter

          Gift from renowned trial attorney will be used to build the new “Shanin Specter Courtroom” and to support multiple areas within the College.
          Tuesday, October 17, 2017

          How a decade of high-flying, high-stakes government jobs led 3L Christa Hall to law school at UC Hastings

          She's protected teams and aircraft on high-risk missions around the world, served as associate director and trip manager for President Barack Obama, and helped deal with crises like cyberhacks and the Ebola epidemic. Now she's preparing for a new way to serve.
          Thursday, October 05, 2017

          When a monkey takes a selfie, who owns the copyright?

          Andrew Dhuey '92 and the infamous “Monkey Selfie” case.
          Wednesday, October 04, 2017

          Professor Dave Owen receives 2017 Rutter Award for Teaching Excellence

          When his parents denied access to all TV except PBS wildlife specials, it sparked a life-long environmental law interest in our “infectiously enthusiastic” professor.
          Tuesday, October 03, 2017

          Thinkers & Doers: September 2017

          National Law Journal’s 2017 Winning Litigators -- Uber’s “Hell” program -- Foie gras off the menu in CA -- Comments on the Hash Lab Murder Case -- Pao Effect fighting the bamboo ceiling -- Top 10 LLM Program in California -- New neighborhood hotspots -- and much more
          Go to News Archive