The word “incentive” appears ten times in the ruling issued last month by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the Georgia State University (GSU) copyright infringement case, but it is slightly unclear in this rather odd opinion just who is the object of the incentive created by copyright. In seven of those ten instances, the incentive is clearly intended to benefit the author. But there are three sentences at the very end of the majority opinion (the other three uses of the word) where the court seems to interrupt its analysis to state that the incentive belongs to publishers, not authors. It is, I think, worth parsing this apparent contradiction in order to guess at how the trial court might think about incentives on remand.
The publisher plaintiffs in the Georgia State University (GSU) ereserves copyright case deposited $ 3,271,275 into the Commercial Registry of the Court for the Northern District of Georgia to cover the attorney’s fees and costs of GSU, the prevailing party in the dispute. However, the money will be held in escrow until the appeal is decided.
On September 30 Judge Evans, who had already said the publisher plaintiffs in the Georgia State University (GSU) ereserves case would have to pay the university’s court costs, has now put a number on that obligation: just shy of $3 million. That’s $2,861,348.71 in attorney’s fees and $85,746.39 in costs.
Georgia State University (GSU) Library recently launched a new campaign promoting open access (OA) to the campus research community. Librarians distributed 150 copies of Peter Suber’s new book Open Access from MIT Press to new faculty and campus administrators in a push to increase awareness about OA in general and provide practical information to […]
The plaintiffs in the Georgia State University ereserves case today appealed the decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Orinda Evans of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled largely in GSU’s favor on May 11, holding only a handful of GSU’s usages to be infringement. Plaintiffs Cambridge University […]
On August 10, Judge Orinda Evans rejected the “more narrowly tailored injunction” proposed by the plaintiffs in the Georgia State University (GSU) ereserves case. Earlier this year, Evans found five cases of infringing behavior on GSU’s part; the other seventy instances considered were either dismissed on technical grounds or held to be fair use. Evans […]
The plaintiffs in the Georgia State University (GSU) ereserves case—Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, and Sage Publications—made one last attempt at getting the broader injunction they originally proposed before the trial but, realistically, offered as an alternative “a more narrowly tailored injunction” that more or less hews to the reasoning the court displayed in […]
Ever since the Georgia State e-reserves copyright lawsuit was filed in April 2008, the academic library (and faculty who were aware of it) community has been waiting to find out how Judge Orinda Evans would view the provision of digital course readings under fair use. Now we know, based on her May 11 ruling, that […]
One of the most closely watched e-reserve cases in recent memory came to an end—though an appeal is still possible—on May 11, when Judge Orinda Evans of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled in Cambridge University Press (CUP); Oxford University Press (OUP); Sage Publications v. Georgia State University (GSU). The case alleged copyright infringement in GSU’s e-reserves, and in essence the judge came down on the side of libraries in a 350-page decision delivered almost a year after she heard closing arguments.