FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3122203119> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3122203119 startingPage "65" @default.
• W3122203119 abstract "In 1994, Supreme Court handed down Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.,(1) its only opinion ever to address matter of awarding fees in copyright infringement cases. In this forum, Paul Marcus and David Nimmer, two brothers in copyright law--who also happen to be brothers-in-law--put aside fraternal affections to debate implications of that ruling. I. SETTING THE STAGE FOR THE DEBATE DRONE ON(2) A. Background As leader of band Creedence Clearwater Revival,(3) John Fogerty both performed and wrote many songs. In 1970, he sold exclusive publishing rights in a composition entitled Run Through Jungle to predecessor of Fantasy, Inc.(4) Although band disbanded in 1972, Fogerty's career continued to flourish.(5) In 1985, he published a composition entitled Old Man Down Road.(6) Fantasy alleged that Fogerty thereby infringed copyright in his own earlier song.(7) In reply, Fogerty maintained that only similarities between two works inhered in obvious fact that they shared a common author--by no stretch of imagination did his assignment of earlier work constitute a permanent covenant to refrain from future songwriting.(8) Applying established copyright doctrine, jury found two tunes in issue not substantially similar(9) and hence returned a verdict in Fogerty's favor.(10) Having prevailed through a long, grueling fight, Fogerty wished to recover (along with his restored pride) attorney's fees that he had expended. The lower courts rebuffed his attempts.(11) The matter went to United States Supreme Court, and Court issued its ruling on award of attorney's fees in copyright infringement cases. Before turning to Court's opinion, some background is in order. B. The Law Before 1994 Copyright infringement actions can involve enormous economic stakes.(12) Moreover, copyright statute itself leverages financial impact of litigation in this sphere by even allowing award of attorney's fees, in contrast to traditional American rule.(13) It is, therefore, perhaps surprising that statutory language is so spare in discussing awarding of fees. Section 505 of Copyright Act of 1976 simply provides that the court may . . . award a reasonable attorney's fee to prevailing party as part of costs.(14) The Copyright Act gives no guidance on such important matters as how court is to determine who is prevailing party(15) or manner in which it is to measure reasonableness of a fee.(16) More to point, though, it appears that legislature failed to consider few crucial words regarding attorney's fees in copyright statute, the court may . . . The language, on its face, appears to grant trial court virtually unfettered discretion in an infringement action. The appeals courts, however, split sharply on way to exercise this discretion, particularly insofar as it related to actions in which defendants, rather than plaintiffs, prevailed. C. The Dual Approach Some courts awarded attorney's fees to prevailing plaintiffs in normal course of events, routinely, [b]ecause Copyright Act is intended to encourage suits to redress copyright infringement....(17) The Second and Ninth Circuits illustrate that trend.(18) Indeed, in its first opinion in Fogerty case, Ninth Circuit emphasized encouragement incentive in rejecting defendant's claim for an award. purpose of that rule is to avoid chilling a copyright holder's incentive to sue on colorable claims, and thereby to give full effect to broad protection for copyrights intended by Copyright Act.(19) Of course, with an emphasis on protection of copyright holder's interest, it is not surprising that prevailing plaintiffs had little problem in receiving awards. It is also not surprising that courts following this dual standard(20) would not allow awards to prevailing defendants without some showing of bad faith, a claim objectively without arguable merit. …" @default.
• W3122203119 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3122203119 creator A5046955036 @default.
• W3122203119 creator A5059961780 @default.
• W3122203119 date "1997-10-01" @default.
• W3122203119 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3122203119 title "Forum on Attorney's Fees in Copyright Cases: Are We Running through the Jungle Now or Is the Old Man Still Stuck Down the Road?" @default.
• W3122203119 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W3122203119 type Work @default.
• W3122203119 sameAs 3122203119 @default.
• W3122203119 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3122203119 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3122203119 hasAuthorship W3122203119A5046955036 @default.
• W3122203119 hasAuthorship W3122203119A5059961780 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConcept C2776119841 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConcept C2776213154 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConcept C2778893106 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConcept C2779776346 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConcept C34974158 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConceptScore W3122203119C144024400 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConceptScore W3122203119C17744445 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConceptScore W3122203119C199539241 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConceptScore W3122203119C2776119841 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConceptScore W3122203119C2776211767 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConceptScore W3122203119C2776213154 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConceptScore W3122203119C2778272461 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConceptScore W3122203119C2778893106 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConceptScore W3122203119C2779776346 @default.
• W3122203119 hasConceptScore W3122203119C34974158 @default.
• W3122203119 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W3122203119 hasLocation W31222031191 @default.
• W3122203119 hasOpenAccess W3122203119 @default.
• W3122203119 hasPrimaryLocation W31222031191 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W1124898751 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W1562811444 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W1589808793 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W1835343678 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W1982388422 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W2245729492 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W2262617141 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W2594206242 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W261084530 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W305999546 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W308234495 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W3123876985 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W3124789230 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W3125030736 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W324641192 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W339194152 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W383354263 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W79507437 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W2601231038 @default.
• W3122203119 hasRelatedWork W3123472780 @default.
• W3122203119 hasVolume "39" @default.
• W3122203119 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3122203119 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3122203119 magId "3122203119" @default.
• W3122203119 workType "article" @default.