![]() ![]() The claim therefore fell with the conclusion that the infringement claim was defeated by the defense of fair use. He also rejected the contract claim, concluding that the library agreements are to be construed not to prevent all quotations but only "quotations and excerpts that infringe copyright." Id. Judge Leval rejected the unfair competition claim, finding "no showing of distortions that would give rise to a Lanham Act claim." Id. at 428, and that such use as Hamilton had made was "fair use" within the meaning of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Building on the premise that only such fragmentary copying of protected material was involved, Judge Leval concluded that "Hamilton's appropriations of copyrighted expressions are too minimal to subject Salinger to any serious harm," id. In the District Judge's view, the extent of copying of expressive material entitled to copyright protection was "minimal," amounting to "about 30 instances of the use of a word or a phrase or an image." Id. Judge Leval granted a temporary restraining order but subsequently issued an opinion denying a preliminary injunction. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |