A transformative purpose fair use finding

Wong v. Village Green Owners Association, No. CV 14-03803, 2015
WL 12672092 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2015)
This transformative fair use case just showed up in my
Westclip search.  Wong, who owned a unit
in Village Green, prepared a National Historic Landmark nomination on behalf of
VGOA, a homeowners association, which subsequently posted the nomination on its
website. Wong sued for copyright infringement, and the court found fair use.
Wong prepared the NHL nomination on her own initiative,
knowing that VGOA wouldn’t pay her, because she believed that, “[f]rom a moral
viewpoint, [she] had no choice.” The nomination consists of a 78-page form and
38 pages of photographs. It contains “purely factual information, such as
information about the property’s location, the structures on the property, the
materials used to build the property, and its architecture, history, and impact
and legacy on the community.” The Village Green became a certified National
Historic Landmark in 2001.
Since 2005, Wong has made the nomination available for free
to the general public through her website. Another copy is also available for
free to the general public through the National Park Service’s website, and Wong
understood that the general public would eventually have access to the document
for free while she was preparing it.
The court found that VGOA’s use of the nomination as an “Important
Document[]” on its website was transformative. Wong’s purpose in making the
work was to obtain a NHL certification on behalf of the Village Green, which
was granted.  VGOA’s purpose in posting
the document was “so the Village Green community and the general public may
have access to the document as an information and educational resource.” This
substantially different purpose weighed heavily in favor of fair use.
VGOA’s use was also entirely noncommercial: VGOA neither
charged for nor received profits from or revenues from the use.  The tax benefits VGOA received from the
certification decision were irrelevant. Anyway, even counting those benefits
wouldn’t render VGOA’s use of the nomination commercial, in the sense of
“unfair[ly] exploit [ing] the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of
the copyright.” Village Green, as a National Historic Landmark, was eligible
for a tax break, but Wong, as an individual, was not.
Nature of the work: highly factual, favoring fair use. Amount
used: the whole thing, which was reasonable in relation to the purpose of the
copying, so this factor didn’t weigh in favor of either party.

Market effect: there was none because the nomination had no
market value and Wong already made it available for free, as did the NPS.  Although someone had to pay for the work’s
preparation, the fourth fair use factor “has nothing to do with the cost of preparing
the copyrighted work.”

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2eVkslD

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s