View Case

Cited Cases

Citing Cases

 Comment (0)

 

Loading

HEALTHCARE ADVOCATES v. HARDING, EARLEY, FOLLMER
497 F.Supp.2d 627 (2007)
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
July 20, 2007.


 

 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) states that summary judgment is proper "if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." See also Hines v. Consol. Rail Corp.,926 F.2d 262, 267 (3d Cir.1991). The Court must ask "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to the jury or whether . . . one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The moving party has the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986).
Summary judgment must be granted "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The nonmoving party must go beyond the allegations set forth in its pleadings and counter with evidence showing that there is a genuine factual dispute requiring a trial. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(e); see Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am. Inc.,974 F.2d 1358, 1362-63 (3d Cir.1992). A genuine factual dispute exists when "a reasonable jury could return a verdict in favor of the nonmoving party." Embrico v. U.S. Steel Corp.,404 F.Supp.2d 802, 817 (E.D.Pa. 2005). When a party fails to establish an element of their case, summary judgment must be granted. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548.
[ 497 F.Supp.2d 634 ]

III. DISCUSSION
A. Copyright Infringement
A person commits copyright infringement by violating one or more of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as enumerated in 17 U.S.C. § 106 (2007).2 Infringement occurs when a person reproduces, adapts, distributes, publicly performs or publicly displays a work protected by the Copyright Act in an unprivileged way. These exclusive rights of copyright holders are codified in statute at § 106 of the Copyright Act, and they delineate the boundary between copyright infringement and non-infringing use. In the event that infringement has occurred, an infringer may be excused from liability under the doctrine of fair use. Determining whether fair use applies in an infringement case is a mixed question of law and fact that this Court may decide. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enter.,471 U.S. 539, 560, 105 S.Ct. 2218, 85 L.Ed.2d 588 (1985).
Fair use is a judicially created defense to a claim for copyright infringement. Congress codified this common law defense in the Copyright Act of 1976. 17 U.S.C. § 107.3 Under the doctrine, a court must consider four factors in making a determination that the defendant is entitled to a defense of fair use for his infringing activity. Those factors are: (1) the purpose and character of the use, (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion
[ 497 F.Supp.2d 635 ]

used, and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. This doctrine is relevant as the Harding firm has offered it as a complete defense to their actions.


Click here for unpaginated view






Disclaimer     :::     Terms of Use     :::     Privacy Statement     :::     About Us     :::     Contact Us     :::     Copyright © 2010   Leagle, Inc.