“At issue in this case is whether a single line from a full-length novel singly paraphrased and attributed to the original author in a full-length Hollywood film can be considered a copyright infringement. In this case, it cannot,” the judge wrote.
Lee Caplin, who oversees the literary estate, said Friday in a telephone interview that the ruling “is problematic for authors throughout the United States” and he’s considering what legal options are available.
“We’re very disappointed in the judge’s ruling and we feel it’s not only wrong, it’s going to be damaging to creative people everywhere,” Caplin said.
Sony Pictures said in a statement Friday that the company was “confident that the judge in this case would get it right, and he did.”
Michael Sauers is currently the Director of Technology for Do Space in Omaha, NE. Michael has been training librarians in technology for the past twenty years and has also been a public library trustee, a bookstore manager for a library friends group, a reference librarian, serials cataloger, technology consultant, and bookseller since earning his MLS in 1995 from the University at Albany’s School of Information Science and Policy. Michael has also written dozens of articles for various journals and magazines and his fourteenth book, Emerging Technologies: A Primer for Librarians (w/ Jennifer Koerber) was published in May 2015 and more books are on the way. In his spare time he blogs at travelinlibrarian.info, runs The Collector’s Guide to Dean Koontz Web site, takes many, many photos, and typically reads more than 100 books a year.
View all posts by Michael Sauers
2 Replies to “Fair use victory in Faulkner case”
Two of my fellow librarians and I were railing against this lawsuit. the Faulkner people should be HAPPY Woody CITED the author.
The court’s analysis under the fourth factor weighed heavily in favor of Sony. It interpreted the inclusion of the paraphrased quote in Midnight as actually helping Faulkner and “the market value of Requiem if it had any effect at all.” The court also stated “how Hollywood’s flattering and artful use of literary allusion is a point of litigation, not celebration, is beyond this court’s comprehension.”
Noting that Faulkner had not pointed to any “compelling evidence” that the markets for Requiem had suffered substantial harm, the Court also rejected as irrelevant Faulkner’s statement that it routinely enters into licensing materials for its copyright materials (and its suggestion that other material in the film, such as music, had been licensed).
“At issue in this case is whether a single line from a full-length novel singly paraphrased and attributed to the original author in a full-length Hollywood film can be considered a copyright infringement. In this case, it cannot,” the judge wrote.
Two of my fellow librarians and I were railing against this lawsuit. the Faulkner people should be HAPPY Woody CITED the author.
And my colleague found this: http://www.copyrightalliance.org/2013/07/midnight_paris_faulkner_quote_dispute_now_past
Factor 4: Effect of the Use Upon the Potential Market for or Value of the Copyrighted Work
The court’s analysis under the fourth factor weighed heavily in favor of Sony. It interpreted the inclusion of the paraphrased quote in Midnight as actually helping Faulkner and “the market value of Requiem if it had any effect at all.” The court also stated “how Hollywood’s flattering and artful use of literary allusion is a point of litigation, not celebration, is beyond this court’s comprehension.”
Noting that Faulkner had not pointed to any “compelling evidence” that the markets for Requiem had suffered substantial harm, the Court also rejected as irrelevant Faulkner’s statement that it routinely enters into licensing materials for its copyright materials (and its suggestion that other material in the film, such as music, had been licensed).