Jarvis v. K2 Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
486 F.3d 526 (2007)
- Written by Sarah Holley, JD
Facts
Chase Jarvis (plaintiff) was a professional photographer who created and delivered several thousand photographs to K2 Inc. (defendant) for use in its marketing and sale of outdoor sporting goods. This arrangement proceeded pursuant to a series of agreements that concluded with an agreement dated December 2001. The 2001 agreement authorized K2 to publish Jarvis’s images in media, including K2’s brochures, print advertisements, posters, and electronic marketing to market its business. The 2001 agreement also limited K2’s right to use Jarvis’s images to a term ending in May 2003. During the term, K2 incorporated 24 of Jarvis’s images into four collage advertisements that were published as magazine inserts. The advertisements combined edited versions of Jarvis’s images with other images, marketing graphics, and promotional slogans. After the term expired, K2 scanned and displayed the collage advertisements on its website. Jarvis thereafter filed suit against K2 for copyright infringement and other claims. The district court held in favor of Jarvis in most respects but found that the 24 images contained in K2’s collage advertisements were not infringed because the advertisements were covered by the collective-works privilege of Section 201(c) of the Copyright Act. Jarvis appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fisher, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
