“A Catholic Framework for Economic Life.” United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Inc., Nov. 1996. Web. 1 May 2015. <http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/economic-justice-economy/upload/catholic-framework-economic-life.pdf>
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is a group of Catholic Bishops in the United States who, together, help to promote the common good and exercise pastoral functions for Christians in the United States. To promote the common good, the organization supports education, human rights, and the betterment of society, charity, and economic opportunity. “A Catholic Framework for Economic Life” was written by the United States’ bishops and is founded upon the Catechism of the Catholic Church, papal encyclicals, a teaching letter known as Economic Justice for All, and statements by U.S. Catholic Bishops. In this “Catholic Framework for Economic Life,” the bishops created a list of obligations the economy has to its people and the rights and duties of people in regards to economic and societal concerns.
Ainsworth, Charles L. Personal interview. 29 Apr. 2015.
Charles Ainsworth is an attorney and partner with the Parker, Bunt & Ainsworth law firm and has over 17 years worth of practicing law. He has worked in four law firms, total, both in Houston and in Tyler, Texas, and has earned a J.D. as well as a B.A. in Political Science. His practice focuses on patent and business litigation in addition to personal injury matters.
“Can Someone Sin and Not Know It?” Verse by Verse Ministry. 14 Dec. 2011. Verse by Verse International, 2015. Web. 3 May 2015. <http://www.versebyverseministry.org/bible-answers/can_someone_sin_and_not_know_it>
The staff of Verse by Verse Ministry answers the question: “Can someone sin and not know it?” in this article. It is possible for a person to sin without knowing that he or she is sinning, as the sin even without knowledge to it commits an “offense against God.” This information is useful in that it answers this question which is brought up in the theological argument for a definition of transformativeness to be added to the Fair Use Doctrine. The organization, Verse by Verse Ministry is a Christian, non-profit ministry dedicated to preaching and teaching the Christian Gospel.
“Copyright Timeline: A History of Copyright in the United States.” Association of Research Libraries. Association of Research Libraries, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. < http://www.arl.org/focus-areas/copyright-ip/2486-copyright-timeline#.VULgrOlFDIW>
This article deals with the history of copyright in the United States and gives a detailed account of the timeline in which events involving copyright occurred between 1787 and 2014. It is updated regularly as each important event occurs within copyright. This article was written by the Association of Research Libraries, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing accurate information to the scholarly and educational communities and promoting the exchange of ideas and expertise.
“Court of Appeals Miscellaneous Fee Schedule.” United States Courts. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 2 May 2015. <http://www.uscourts.gov/FormsAndFees/Fees/CourtOfAppealsMiscellaneousFeeSchedule.aspx>
In this source, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts provides information in regards to the court fees of the Courts of Appeals in lawsuits. The site on which this information is provided is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and its purpose is to provide the public information from and about the Judicial Branch of the United States Government.
“District Court Miscellaneous Fee Schedule.” United States Courts. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, 1 Dec. 2014. Web. 2 May 2015. <http://www.uscourts.gov/FormsAndFees/Fees/DistrictCourtMiscellaneousFeeSchedule.aspx>
This source contains information in regards to the fees of District Court lawsuits. The site on which this information is provided is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and its purpose is to provide the public information from and about the Judicial Branch of the United States Government.
“Fair Use and Fair Dealing in Foreign Countries.” Canadian Conference of the Arts. Canadian Conference of the Arts, n.d. Web. 1 May 2015. <http://ccarts.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/FairUseandFairDealinginForeignCountries.pdf>
This article compares the specifics about the Copyright laws of various countries in regards to fair use, or fair dealing as it is called in other countries. These countries include: Australia, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This is useful in creating an analogy or comparison between the law elements of one country with those of another.
“Folsom v. Marsh.” Copyright & Fair Use Stanford University Libraries. The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, 25 Apr. 2013. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. < http://fairuse.stanford.edu/case/folsom-v-marsh/>
This source contains a summary of the Massachusetts Circuit Court’s decision in the 1841 Folsom v. Marsh case. In this summary, it gives the court statement in regards to “justifiable use of original materials,” which later inspired and in part became the Fair Use Doctrine. The summary was provided by the Stanford University Libraries’ website. Stanford University is a prestigious educational establishment, and the original purpose of the “Copyright & Fair Use” section of the Stanford University Libraries’ website was to discuss a case involving Copyright and Fair Use. The website now has information in regards to copyright law, statutes, cases, regulations, and current news on the matter.
Graham, Stuart J.H. and Nicolas Van Zeebroeck. “Comparing Patent Litigation Across Europe: A First Look.” Stanford Law School. Stanford University, 2015. Web. 1 May 2015. <http://journals.law.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/stanford-technology-law-review/online/patentlitacrosseurope.pdf>
This source includes a detailed report over intellectual property litigation, specifically patent litigation, in European countries as well as in the United States. The report has statistical data comparing litigation between European countries and the United States between 2000 and 2010. This data encompasses the legal costs of intellectual property litigation, legal damages, amount of time till judgment of the cases, and information over the types of courts in these countries.
Gottlieb, Emily. “What You Need to Know About…Punitive Damages.” Center for Justice Democracy. Number 22. Center for Justice Democracy, Sept. 2011. Web. 3 May 2015. <http://www.fairwarning.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/PunitiveDamagesWhitePaper2011F.pdf>
Emily Gottlieb is the Deputy Director for Law and Policy of the Center for Justice and Democracy. Prior to her appointment as the Deputy Director for Law and Policy, she was an attorney with the center and was a leading writer and analyst for the organization. The Center for Justice & Democracy is a non-profit organization whose goal is to raise awareness about the importance of the justice system. The purpose of this article by Gottlieb is to inform the public about punitive damages.
Hofer, Roy E. “Supreme Court Reversal Rates: Evaluating the Federal Courts of Appeals.” Landslide. American Bar Association, 2010. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. <http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/intelprop/magazine/LandslideJa n2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf>
Roy E. Hofer has over 50 years of experience as an intellectual property litigator, specializing in patent, trade, antitrust and contract matters. Hofer’s practice now focuses on creating resolutions to intellectual property matters. His experience in federal and district court intellectual property cases gives Hofer insight into how to resolve disputes quickly and efficiently in intellectual property.
“J.d. Salinger v. Random House, Inc. and Ian Hamilton.” Justia US Law. Justia, 2015. Web. 1 May 2015. <http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/811/90/206150/>
This site is recommended by Stanford University, a leading educational center, as a credible and useful source. The article on this website contains information in regards to the context and rulings on the Salinger v. Random House and Hamilton court case. Additionally, there is a discussion in regards to the judgment on the case by Judge Pierre N. Leval. In this discussion, it provides detailed antithesis to Leval’s decision on the case and explains the rights that are due to the copyright holder, Salinger.
Kretschmer, Bently, M. Kretschmer, and Oren Bracha. “Commentary on: Folsom v. Marsh (1841).” Primary Sources on Copyright (1450-1900). 2008. Copyrighthistory.org, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. <http://www.copyrighthistory.org/cam/tools/request/showRecord.php?id=commentary_us_1841>
This article provides information in regards to the 1841 Folsom v. Marsh court case as well as its significance to the modern day definition of Fair Use. Oren Bracha, the author of the article, is a legal historian and scholar in intellectual property law. He has written a essay over the history of Anglo-American intellectual property law. Additionally, he was a law clerk of the Supreme Court of Israel, and currently is an employee of the University of Texas at Austin’s School of Law.
Leval, Pierre N. “Toward a Fair Use Standard.” The George Washington University. 1990. The George Washington University, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. <http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/levalfrustd.htm>
In Pierre N. Leval’s essay, “Toward a Fair Use Standard”, he highlights an issue he has encountered, through his service as a judge, about the Copyright Act of 1976 and its lack of a clear definition of “fair use” in the law. He also indicates how this has affected judges and their varied rulings in cases that question whether or not someone is protected under the fair use doctrine or not, and as a result the effect this has on those involved with the fair use doctrine of the Copyright Law. This article is credible due to the fact that Leval is a U.S. Circuit Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, appointed in 1993, and has had experience with Copyright lawsuits that had to do with the Fair Use Doctrine. In addition to this, Leval was awarded the Donald R. Brace Memorial Lectureship by the Copyright Society of the U.S.A. in 1989 and the University of Connecticut School of Law’s Intellectual Property Keynote Lectureship for 2001. The intended audience of this article appears to be fellow judges, lawmakers, law students, and others who are interested in Copyright law, as this article appears to be an argumentative article, so Leval is likely attempting to reach out to those who would be able to make change in this section of law. This article is relevant because it involves the fair use doctrine and calls out the fact that there is no clear definition of what is “fair use” in Section 107 of the Copyright Law. In addition to this, it highlights the confusion and discrepancies that have come about as a result of the lack of a clear definition of what is fair use.
Newman, Michael J. and John S. Summers. “Toward a Better Measure and Understanding Of U.S. Supreme Court Review of Courts of Appeals Decisions.” The United States Law Week. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 27 Sept. 2011. Web. 1 May 2015. <http://www.bna.com/>
This source provides statistical data on the United States Courts of Appeals in a review of these courts by the United States Supreme Court. The authors of this explication of the Supreme Court’s findings are John S. Summers and Michael J. Newman. Summers is a shareholder and founding partner of the Hangley, Aronchick, Segal, Pudlin & Schiller law firm, he is an attorney with 25 years of experience in litigation. Newman is an associate of Summers’ law firm and is a magistrate judge with previous experience as a partner and attorney in the Cincinnati office of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.
Pallante, Maria A. “The Constitutional Provision Respecting Copyright.” Copyright. 2011. U.S. Copyright Office, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. < http://copyright.gov/title17/92preface.html>
This source contains information on the Copyright Law of the United States, including its preamble in the “Constitutional Provision Respecting Copyright” section of the article provided. This portion of the original Copyright Law states the purpose of the law and its goals. This article was written by Maria Pallante, the current director of the United States Copyright Office, and appointed 12th Register of Copyrights. She has a long history of involvement with intellectual property rights, beginning in 1999, serving as a counselor and director in intellectual property rights and copyright law.
Pate, R. Hewitt. “Promoting Economic Growth Through Competition and Innovation.” Department of Justice. 1 July, 2014. Department of Justice, n.d. Web. 3 May 2015. < http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/speeches/204931.htm>
Hewitt Pate was the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 2003 to 2005. Prior to this, Pate was an Ewald Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law at the University of Virginia. In his early career, he served as a law clerk for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court; the retired Supreme Court Justice, Lewis F. Powell Jr.; and Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Currently, he is a member of several law institutions, including the Washington, D.C. and Vriginia bars and the American Law Institute, as well as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
“Questionnaire on Copyright – Answers from Belgium.” International Association of Music Libraries. International Association of Music Libraries, n.d. Web. 1 May 2015. <http://www.iaml.info/en/activities/copyright/survey/belgium/>
This source offers information in regards to Belgium intellectual property laws, providing links to sections of the country’s Copyright law. This data was made available by the International Association of Music Libraries, Archives and Documentation Centres. The mission of this association is to encourage the “activities of music libraries” to support musical information and documentation worldwide.
“Salinger v. Random House, Inc.” Cornell University Law School. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 1 May 2015. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/811_F2d_90.htm>
This source provides material on the Salinger v. Random House and Hamilton case. The information in this article includes details in regards to the judges, background, and rulings on the case. Included in the source is a discussion on the court case by Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, founded in 1992. The purpose of the Legal Information Institute (LII) is to promote the understanding of governmental laws without charging the public for its services. It does this by publishing law articles online for free, detangling the law to make it more understandable, and making it “easier for people to find the law.”
Saunders, Jason A. Personal interview. 28 Apr. 2015.
Jason Saunders is an attorney and partner at the Arnold, Knobloch & Saunders law firm and has focused on intellectual property rights over his entire career. He has also litigated intellectual property cases in a wide variety of technical fields. In addition, he counsels in a range of different of matters in intellectual property, including copyright registration and litigation.
Schoenhard, Paul M. “Judging Trial Judges.” Ropes & Gray. IP Law & Business, Mar. 2006. ALM Properties, Inc., 2006. Web. 1 May 2015. <https://www.ropesgray.com/~/media/Files/articles/2006/03/schoenhard-no-need-for-patent-judges.pdf>
Paul Schoenhard is an attorney whose focus lies with patent litigation both before the U.S. International Trade Commission and before the federal courts in the United States. Schoenhard has been a visiting professor at several universities, including the University of Utah and S.J. Quinney College of Law. Presently, he teaches a college course called “Patent and Trademark Appeals Before the Federal Circuit” at Washington College of Law. He is also an adjunct faculty member at American University and the University of New Hampshire School of Law.
“Section 107 Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use.” Copyright. U.S. Copyright Office, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. < http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107>
This source contains Section 107 of the Copyright Law of the United States; this section of the Copyright Law comes from the Copyright Act of 1976 and highlights limitations on the exclusive rights of a person to his or her copyright through the guidelines with which it gives that become the Fair Use Doctrine. It is credible because it is a government website created by the U.S. Copyright Office which is dedicated to the copyright law and thus must be accurate in its presentation of the laws with which copyright is involved. The writer of this document is the U.S. Congress, another government source, and therefore must also be credible, as if they presented faulty information, they would be called out and the reputations of the senators and representatives involved with the faulty information would be tarnished, thus making it more difficult for these senators and representatives to be reelected, so making them inclined to be accurate in such documents. The intended audience for this source would be the citizenry of the United States, as it affects each and every person in the country in one way or another; in particular it addresses inventors, publishers, authors, artists, and creators of various fields of study. This source is highly useful, as it is the document with which I am calling to be revised in my argument, and thus without it, my argument would be without footing.
Story, Joseph. “Folsom v. Marsh.” Yale Law & Technology. Oct. 1841. Thomas Reuters, 2011. Web. 1 May 2015. <http://www.yalelawtech.org/wp-content/uploads/FolsomvMarsh1841.pdf>
This document offers the report by Joseph Story over the Folsom v. Marsh court case in 1841, mentioned by Pierre N. Leval in his essay “Towards a Fair Use Standard.” This information was provided by Yale University’s course website, Yale Law & Technology, for law and technology courses at Yale University. In the courses listed, it includes the “CPSC 184” college course which is dedicated to teaching about “Intellectual Property in the Digital Age.”
“Supreme Court Analysis of Activity for the Year Ending August 31, 1984.” Texas Judicial Branch. 31 Aug. 1984. Texas Judicial Branch, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. <http://www.txcourts.gov/search-result-page.aspx?q=reversal+statistics>
This document provides information on the Supreme Court of Texas from 1984, including reversal statistics. This data is provided by the Texas Judicial Branch of the United States Government. The purpose of this website is to provide to the public information regarding the Judicial System of Texas and educate the people on how the court system works.
“The Statute of Anne; April 10, 1710.” The Avalon Project. Lillian Goldman Law Library, 2008. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. < http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/anne_1710.asp>
The Yale Law School, where the Lillian Goldman Law Library is located, is one of the world’s leading law schools. This article on Yale Law School’s Lillian Goldman Law Library’s website contains the entire original statutory content of The Statute of Anne from April 10th, 1710. The Statute of Anne was the first copyright law and inspired the copyright laws of many other countries.
“What is Intellectual Property?” WIPO. World Intellectual Property Organization, n.d. Web. 30 Apr. 2015. < http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/>
This article offers the legal definition of Intellectual Property and the range of creations it encompasses. WIPO, the World Intellectual Property Organization, is the global forum for the services, policy, information and cooperation involving intellectual property. WIPO deals with the International Patent, Trademark, and Design Systems and provides services which help to mitigate Intellectual Property Disputes.
Yahr, Emily. “Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams owe Mavin Gaye’s family $7.4 million for ‘Blurred Line,’ jury decides.” The Washington Post. 10 Mar. 2015. The Washington Post, n.d. Web. 3 May 2015. < http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/03/10/robin-thicke-pharrell-williams-owe-marvin-gayes-family-7-4-million-for-blurred-lines-jury-decides/>
This report from The Washington Post offers information in regards to the Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke vs. Marvin Gaye family case, including the rarity of such cases and the amount Williams and Thicke were ordered to pay to Marvin Gaye’s family in compensation. The article also offers information in regards to the dispute between Sam Smith and Tom Petty, which was settled quietly, without all of the publicity. Emily Yahr is a reporter with The Washington Post from Washington D.C.