Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Shloss v. Sweeney

United States District Court for the Northern District of California
515 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (2007)


Facts

Carol Loeb Shloss (plaintiff) spent a year researching a biographical book about writer James Joyce and his daughter, Lucia Joyce. Shloss conducted research using original source materials, such as letters and unpublished books from members of the Joyce family. When Shloss contacted Stephen Joyce (Joyce), the beneficiary of James Joyce’s estate (the estate) (defendant), Joyce refused to speak with Shloss and forbade her from using any letters or papers by Lucia Joyce. Over the course of several years, Joyce sent several letters to Shloss and her publisher, objecting to use of the estate’s materials and stating that the estate had never lost a lawsuit. Joyce rejected a fair-use assertion by the publisher. Shloss’s book was ultimately published without reference to many of the original sources. Shloss later created a website to host an electronic supplement to the book, which contained copies of the original source materials previously objected to by Joyce. Though Joyce claimed to have agreed to a covenant not to sue about the website’s materials, Shloss had added material to the non-public version now under review. After Shloss wrote to the estate to alert it to her intent to publish the electronic supplement, the estate again objected to publication of the material and stated that it reserved all rights if Shloss proceeded with publication. Shloss then filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory judgment to determine that the website would not violate any copyrights and that the supplement constituted fair use. The estate asserted that Shloss did not show reasonable apprehension of liability; the covenant not to sue eliminated any reasonable apprehension; and a ruling would constitute an advisory opinion, because the supplement had not been published.

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 (Ware, 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.

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 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.