After completing the readings and assignments in this module, participants will be able to do the following.

• Understand how fair use analysis and other copyright considerations have been made by the courts
• Have an increased understanding of making their own fair use analyses
• Continue to develop an appreciation of the varying viewpoints

Sample Case Brief
What have the courts had to say

(w/ added notes and explanations that you would not need in your brief in italics
with the exeption of items in bold and italics which you would need.)
I chose this case since it had implications in the Napster case that many of you probably heard about.
Finally, note that this is a very basic case brief and a law student would have to analyze more thoroughly the entire history of the case.

SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., ET AL 464 U.S. 417 (1984) CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 81-1687.

[Note: The citation above begins with the case parties, followed by the case reference w/ U.S. referring to U.S. Supreme Court, followed by the year of the decision or document filing in parenthesis. This information is all that is required in your briefs. I have included appeals court information as well, but additional information such as this is optional in your brief. I also placed a link above to the entire case on the findlaw website at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/. When I brief a case, I will often write a little something at the top of my own copy such as "This is the VCR case" to help center me, but this is not part of a case brief per se.]

Argued January 18, 1983 Reargued October 3, 1983 Decided January 17, 1984

Background -

[Note: The judicial history informs the reader, at a glance, about the case’s outcome at each judicial level (i.e., who won). It can usually be found from within the decision for Supreme Court cases. You should only include facts and then only the facts that matter. For example, you do not need to say that someone was driving a green Aerostar van when driving is all that is required for the case briefing. In the brief below I only state retailers instead of listing them all for instance.]

Sony manufactured VCR's (called VTR's back then) that were then sold at retailers. Universal City Studios, Inc. and others owning the copyrights on copied materials argued that this was contributory copyright infringement, alleging that VCR consumers were recording copyrighted materials that had been transmitted on commercially sponsored television. Respondents sought money damages, an equitable accounting of profits, and an injunction against the manufacture and marketing of the VTR's.

The District Court denied respondents all relief, holding that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use [note the use of the words fair use], and that petitioners could not be held liable as contributory infringers even if the home use of a VTR was considered an infringing use, in part because of the obvious legal usages of the devices.

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding petitioners liable for contributory infringement and ordering the District Court to fashion appropriate relief.

Facts -

[If there were additional facts that were not found in the background, you would enter them here. For example, if the decision required knowledge of how many VCR's had already been produced and sold, then you would enter that information here. If there are no such facts in your case, I would join facts with background and present them as one section called Background and Facts.]

Issues -

1. Was Sony responsible for copyright infringement? (District court said no and Appellate court did not overturn this decision thus not discussed in this case)
2. Was Sony, as an agent selling devices with the primary purpose of creating video copies of other video productions, responsible for contributory copyright infringement in the event that a potential buyer chose to use the device to make illegal copies? [Note that the issue needs to clearly state the issue. Simply saying "Was Sony responsible for copyright infringement?" is not enough. Also note the placement of primary as the purpose adjective.]

Holding -

1. No.
2. No, Sony is not responsible for contributory infringement due to substantial legal usage and likelihood of copyright holders consent.

Reasoning of Supreme Court -

The main use of videotapes constituted "fair use". Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 222 U.S. 55 , does not support respondents' theory that supplying the "means" to accomplish an infringing activity and encouraging that activity through advertisement are sufficient to establish liability for copyright infringement. The sale of copying equipment is not contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses. [This was one of the main arguments being used in the Napster case, but the final sentence did not hold in the Napster case in part because of the way the program was initially marketed and primarily used..]

The record and the District Court's findings show:
(1) There is a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i. e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so that it can be watched at a later time); [Note that this hurt the Napster case. Also note that they were referring to free television, so this case never really addressed cable viewing with implications in digital recorders of cable broadcasts years later.]
(2) There is no likelihood that time-shifting would cause harm to the potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works. Private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home satisfies this standard of noninfringing uses both because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing such time-shifting for their programs, and because the District Court's findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use.

Decision - [although not listed as a section in the case briefing document I said to use as a model, you should have a decision section, especially for appelate and Supreme Court cases that relate the case to previous cases.]

659 F.2d 963, reversed. [This states that the appelate decision in 659 F.2d 963 was reversed.]