Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Cambridge University Press v. Patton

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
769 F.3d 1232 (2014)


Facts

The Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia (the board) (defendant) and administrators at Georgia State University (GSU) (defendant) implemented a policy for determining when distributing excerpts of copyrighted works, such as textbooks, to students would constitute fair use. The policy was used to determine when digital copies could be made available to students free of charge. Under the policy, professors were required to use a checklist of factors to consider under each of the statutory fair-use factors. Cambridge University Press (Cambridge), Oxford University Press (Oxford), and Sage Publications, Inc. (Sage) (plaintiffs) publish academic textbooks. The plaintiffs, through the Copyright Clearance Center, enabled users to license the use of portions of some textbooks, either electronically or by making photocopies. There were significantly more books that allowed for the licensing of photocopies than for digital copies. Only some titles had digital licensing available. Less than 1 percent of revenues for the plaintiffs came from licensing excerpts of the books in 2009. The plaintiffs sued the board and administrators (plaintiffs) at GSU for copyright infringement. The district court determined that there was an issue as to whether fair use applied for 78 claims of infringement, but only conducted individual analyses for the fair-use factors for seven claims. The court decided the remaining 71 claims based on a mechanical approach applying generalized determinations for each of the four factors. The plaintiffs appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Tjoflat, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Vinson, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 223,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.