Can A Contract Remove Fair Use Rights?
from the we-may-soon-find-out dept
Last year, we wrote about a ridiculous situation in which the Association for Information Media and Equipment (AIME) threatened UCLA, after discovering that the school had set up an online video service, that let UCLA professors put up legally licensed video clips so that students could watch them from their computers. AIME claimed that UCLA's license did not allow for such uses. UCLA claimed this was fair use. After initially taking down the videos, UCLA decided this was worth fighting over and put the videos back up last March. At the time, we thought a lawsuit from AIME would come quickly, but apparently it took until December. UCLA recently filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, setting up a few reasons why -- including the claim that, as a state university, it has sovereign immunity from copyright lawsuits and, also, that AIME is not the copyright holder in question, and thus has no standing.However, as Kevin Smith (not the filmmaker we've been talking about recently, but rather someone at the Duke University Library) notes in the post above, there is an interesting claim in the motion, where UCLA suggests that the breach of contract claim (which comes under a state law) is preempted by federal copyright law. If I remember the details correctly (and you copyright lawyers out there, feel free to correct me), with the Copyright Act of 1976, that law basically superseded any state laws that covered the same grounds. Mostly, people have thought this meant that state copyright laws effectively were wiped out (though, as we've seen, some awful remnants of those laws remain).
However, what UCLA seems to be arguing, is that federal Copyright Law could also wipe out portions of state contract law as well, if those aspects are covered by copyright. It's a creative way of saying that you can't contractually give up aspects of copyright, such as fair use. Now, there are some areas where it's known you can't give up what copyright says via contract. You can't, for example, contractually give up your termination rights (which let you take back a copyright you assigned to someone decades later). Also, it's not quite the same thing, but the recent ruling in the Augusto case has suggested that there are situations where you don't give up copyright exceptions (in that case, first sale) -- but it's distinguished by the fact that the court effectively said there was no license on promotional CDs (despite a stamped on "license" text).
So rather than relying on something like that, UCLA seems to be relying on preemption of state contract law, to say that even if you signed a license agreement, fair use rights can still apply. It's an interesting point. I'm of a mixed opinion on whether or not it's a good thing, however. I am a fan of such copyright exceptions, and would be worried if we started to see fair use "licensed away" in more situations. However, would that also mean that we couldn't license away other aspects of copyright law? Would that cause trouble for certain types of licenses, like Creative Commons licenses?
I'm guessing that the court may skip over this issue entirely, in that it can just hand UCLA a victory on the sovereign immunity or lack of standing claims and just move on without addressing this issue. However, I do expect that it will show up again in other lawsuits at some point.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: contract, copyright, fair use
Companies: aime, ucla
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
GPL / Creative Commons, are more of a reaction to old copyright laws(/practices), and less of an "ideal" solution. (IMHO)
If nothing else, it would be an interesting thought experiment to play around with licences/contracts being null/void (to differing degrees) when it comes to copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I believe that would be a breach of contract, but not copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Privity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is there not privity between the right holder and the licensee? Can you explain what you mean? Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're a law student. Do some student stuff.
Here's the outline: You alleged "breach of contract". In order to allege breach, you must first allege contract.
Going a little bit further... a "license" (in this context) amounts to a "promise not to sue". Not all promises are enforcable. Elsewhere in this thread, someone has mentioned quid pro quo. Along with privity goes "consideration".
As I said, you're a law student: Do some student stuff. This is really basic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
One of the first lessons you learned in contract law is that a contract is, to use an semi-equation, O+A+C=K.
Measure each term under a CC scenario and you may well identify circumstances where a contract has indeed been formed, and specific performance may be ordered by a court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, I go to school in Louisiana, and we have our own civil law tradition that differs from the other 49 states. To us, the requirements for a valid contract are: (1) capacity, (2) consent, (3) cause, and (4) object. Offer and acceptance fall under consent. What's interesting is that consideration is not necessary for a contract to be binding in my state. We're also the only state not to adopt Article II of the UCC.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reliance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Jacobsen v Katzer (Fed.Cir. 2008)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Attribution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In other words, you are not eligible for immunity, as is the state, under the 11th Amendment.
Of course, as an idividual you are entitled to raise all defenses otherwise provided by Title 17, the statutory provisions comprising US copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The important thing to remember is that GPL does not restrict the end user more than copyright...instead it explicitly grants more rights, as long as you observe the limitations on those extra rights.
Since there are hundreds (thousands?) of CC licenses, I can't say that all of them are also just extensions to right, so some might be more restrictive than normal copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it not similar in the USA?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So I'm saying this shouldn't impact those licences, either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No you can't
By signing this contract, you forfeit your right to no cruel or unusual punishment. In the case that you break this contract, police will be allow to torture you.
That'll keep people from messing with you. Just make them give up their rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No you can't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No you can't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No you can't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No you can't
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No you can't
> rights via contract.
Sure you can. The Constitution guarantees your right to keep and bear arms, but you can certainly contractually agree with someone else not to own firearms in exchange for consideration, and that contract would be fully enforceable.
Likewise, you can forgo your right to free speech for consideration (non-disclosure agreements, etc.) and they will be upheld as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't that what a NDA does?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't that what a NDA does?
I've seen lots of NDAs - I've never seen a case where one was actually enforced. Does anyone have an example?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
about NDAs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If something is in legislation, then it's law and CANNOT be dismissed by you or anyone else via a contract.
However, if a law also states that you're allowed to opt out, then that's OK. But if there's no specific law covering the terms of your agreement with another party, then that's your contract and the signatories have to abide by that.
It's really that simple. Honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
(sorry)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
NCs are stated under California law as unenforceable under law as against public policy, but this is unique to California. I am aware of no other state that has adopted this position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As noted in the article, there are some instances where the statutory scheme specifically states that some rights are, in essence, "non-waiveable", but even as to these there are invariably exceptions. Renewal of copyright is one example, but there are means in the law by which they can be truncated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bastardization of Contract Continues
But there is a darker aspect to the bastardization of contracts that really has not received sufficient scrutiny. That is two parties enter into an agreement to "manipulate" a third party. (Essentially depriving the third party of an ability to negotiate.)
For example, go into most computer stores and try to buy computer without the Windows Operating system. You will be told something along the lines that it can't be done because of licensing restrictions or other lame excuse. You should be able to freely negotiate the terms of purchasing a computer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bastardization of Contract Continues
You can either accept the terms Company A is willing to accept or you can shop elsewhere. There are companies that will sell computers without Windows.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bastardization of Contract Continues
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair use and the CC licenses
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair use and the CC licenses
If it's fair use then the CC terms wouldn't apply anyway. A CC licence doesn't give you more rights, only more control.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is fair use a "right", or something granted by the law itself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those options aren't mutually exclusive. Copyright is technically a lawful right, regardless of whether it is a right outside of law. Fair use would seem to be a more natural right, as it is protecting something that you'd be free to do regardless of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately there are no such safeguards in the US
Therefore Americans daily find themselves in the situation of having to contract away their basic consumer protections. Most/all companies do it.
Some of the more common gems include:
Agree to have all disputes tried in the company's home state (Sony's trying to use that one against George Hotz)
Agree to have all disputes settled by binding arbitration with with a firm of the contracting company's choosing. At your own expense.
Agree that in the event that their product goes disastrously wrong, all they are liable for is the purchase price or some token amount (like $5).
Agree that there can be no class actions law suits (recently successfully challenged in the 9th circuit I believe).
Agree that you can't use their product to disparage the company or write 'naughty' things. (Think can't use Microsoft Word to write papers disparaging Microsoft. I think this one was challenged successfully in New York.)
And my all time favorite, which should instantly render any contract immediately null and void. The ever popular:
"We reserve the right to change any of the terms of this agreement, at any time, and for any reason."
If companies want to contract all sorts of things between themselves that's fine, but they shouldn't be allowed to legally do the same to consumers.
Before someone jumps in with the usual;
"If you don't agree with the terms then just don't buy the product/service"
That doesn't work since they are standard terms used by everyone. Take it or leave it doesn't work with, and shouldn't be legal with the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the majority of these cases, they hamper progress - not promote it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright misuse
On first look, there may also be a copyright misuse argument here.
Fair use is a matter of public policy. Contracts contrary to public policy are void. Thus, contracts purporting to take away fair use of copyrighted works may amount to copyright misuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988), Vault contended that Quaid breached its license agreement by decompiling or disassembling the program in violation of the Louisiana Software License Enforcement Act. Louisiana’s License Act permitted a software producer to impose a number of contractual terms upon software purchasers such as prohibition of copying, and modifying and/or adapting the program in any way. The Fifth Circuit held that the License Act conflicts with the Copyright Act: (1) the Copyright Act allows archival copies to be made while the License Act authorizes a total prohibition on copying, (2) the Copyright Act grants protection for a period of time while the License Act is perpetual, and (3) under the License Act all programs may be protected while under the Copyright Act only original works of authorship can be protected. As such, the License Act is preempted by the Copyright Act and the license agreement is unenforceable.
But that's not the end of the story...
In ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), the Seventh Circuit held that rights created by contract are not equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright. They explained that while copyright is a right against the world, contracts only affect their parties and they do not create exclusive rights. For example, if someone who found a copy of a copyrighted program on the street, they would not be affected by the license agreement of the parties, though federal copyright laws would limit the finder’s ability to copy or transmit the application program. Courts usually read preemption clauses to leave private contracts unaffected. Section 301 does not interfere with private transactions in intellectual property, and it does not prevent states from respecting those transactions. Contracts between private parties takes nothing from the public domain. Since a contract is not equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright, therefore the contract may be enforced.
Note that Section 301 of the Copyright Act prevents states from passing or enforcing laws equivalent to copyright.
If you read the notes to Section 109 of the Copyright Act, which deals with the first sale doctrine, it states that a contract limiting a user's first sale rights may be enforceable by an action for breach of contract, but not by an action for copyright infringement.
In Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware, 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the Federal Circuit held that to succeed in a copyright action, the source of the copyright holder's complaint must be grounded in a right protected by the Copyright Act. However, rights granted by contract can be much broader. For example, say a copyright holder grants a licensee a license to make exactly one copy or a book and to read all but the last ten pages. If that licensee makes 100 copies, that is copyright infringement. But if that licensee reads the last ten pages, that is breach of contract.
What does all this mean? I believe that a contract whereby the parties agreed that the licensee would not make particular use of material would be enforceable as a breach of contract, but not copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's pretty interesting, especially with regards to contract/fair-use interaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pre-emption
Generally speaking, a contract cannot remove fair use rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fair use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]