![]() ![]() T neither novelty nor invention is a requisite for copyright protection, but minimal creativity is required. West now appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Martin, J.), following a bench trial, granting declaratory judgment in favor of HyperLaw. publishes compact disc-read only memory ("CD-ROM") compilations of Supreme Court and United States Court of Appeals decisions, and intervened as a plaintiff to seek a judgment declaring that the individual West case reports that are left after redaction of the first category of alterations (i.e., the independently composed features), do not contain copyrightable material. Each case report consists of the text of the judicial opinion with enhancements that for the purposes of this case can be put in two categories: (i) independently composed features, such as a syllabus (which digests and heralds the opinion's general holdings), headnotes (which summarize the specific points of law recited in each opinion), and key numbers (which categorize points of law into different legal topics and subtopics), and (ii) additions of certain factual information to the text of the opinions, including parallel or alternative citations to cases, attorney information, and data on subsequent procedural history. (collectively "West") publish compilations of reports of judicial opinions ("case reports"). Sweet, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation. Judge Sweet dissents in a separate opinion. Settlemyer, III, Washington, DC), for Amicus Curiae American Association of Law Libraries, American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, Medical Library Association, Society of American Archivists, Special Library Association.īefore: CARDAMONE and JACOBS, Circuit Judges, and SWEET, * District Judge. Ray Patterson, Athens, GA), for Amicus Curiae American Association of Legal Publishers. (Arnall Golden & Gregory LLP, Atlanta, GA, L. Sims, Anna Kraske, New York, NY), for Amicus Curiae Reed Elsevier, Inc. Rubins, Satterlee Stephens Burke & Burke LLP, New York, NY, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellants. Kessler, Washington, DC, on the brief), for Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee. and WEST PUBLISHING CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellants. MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff, HYPERLAW, INC., Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, The cumulative effect of these citation decisions is a piling up of things that are essentially obvious or trivial (albeit helpful)." West's particular decisions about which parallel citations to insert are driven in each instance by the court's decision to cite to a certain case, and thus each editorial choice is independent of the others. "Nor do we think the district court erred in concluding that the combination of these citation decisions is unprotectable. On the appeal, West was represented by famous Harvard Law School Professor Arthur R. Lawence Kessler was third seat and coordinated all trial prep and evidence handling. The New York Times stated the following about the trial court's decision: However, almost every one of West's decisions relating to citation alterations is inevitable, typical, dictated by legal convention, or at best binary." "West claims that it exercises careful judgment as to which sources are most useful to legal practitioners. HyperLaw alone raised and tried this issue - in a bench trial before U.S. This is the appeal decision by the Second Circuit upholding the trial court's determination that West's changes to cases gives it no copyright in the TEXT of decisions. This is just one of nine different decisions through which West Publishing Company lost its copyright claims on both the TEXT and the CITATIONS to its National Reporter System. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |