The case of Jacobsen and Katzer revolves around a disagreement over software rights. According to Jacob, the policy of the artistic license is responsible for determining the terms of reference for the license. As a result, he believes that any actions performed against such formalities are equal to copyright infringement. On the other hand, Katzer believes that such terms have no impact on the realm of the license and are simply settlements that display the contractual terms on how the materials should be operated. Therefore, his engagement in the violations of the terms should not be compensated in the form of damages as well as injunctive relief.
The appellate court holding suggested open license regulations was a consideration in the united states. As a result, it could not be wrong to say that such restrictions were critical under the copyright scope. Ideologically the basis of this ruling was to satisfy that the policy of the license was not adhered to in a proper approach; hence, the case could be summarized as an engagement in preliminary injunction as the possibility of copyright infringement (Suman & Pierce, 2018). The decision is credible, and it was made in a manner that recognizes the virtue of social and economic values of the “open source” scope of cultural exchange and innovation. The above, hence, was the reason behind the decision by the jury.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
For those individuals encountering open content license on a regular routine, the ruling decision performed on Jacobsen creates an assurance of legality and judicial confirmation about such licenses. I, therefore, support the decision made because it is a reflection of justice. As a great supporter of elimination of ignorance among different populations, I view it as a tool for implementing further education in society since it will change the people’s perception and view about the management practice of copyrights.
References
Suman, A. B., & Pierce, R. (2018). Challenges for Citizen Science and the EU Open Science agenda under the GDPR. Eur. Data Prot. L. Rev. , 4 , 284.
