Re: Jacobsen v. Katzer settled

[Hyman Rosen]

On 2/19/2010 5:02 PM, RJack wrote:
> No, no Hyman, it's Judge vs. Judge:
>
> "The condition that the user insert a promin,ent notice of
> attr noibution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather,
> Defendants’ alleged violation of the conditions of the license
> may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license,
> but does not create liability for copyright infringement
> where it would not otherwise exist." Judge White in
> Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 (N.D. CA 2007)

This was the decision overturned by the appeals court,
so your judge loses.

> and Appeals Panel vs. Appeals Panel:
>
> "In light of their facts, those cases thus stand for the entirely
> unremarkable principle that "uses" that violate a license
> agreement constitute copyright infringement only when those
> uses would infringe in the absence of any license agreement at all."
> Storage Technology Corp. v. Custom Hardware Engineering
> & Consulting, Inc., 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

There is no "vs." here, since the entirely unremarkable principle
is intact. The infringing use is the copying and distribution of a
work without adhering to its license, violating the exclusive rights
of the author under 17 USC 106.