Jim Clark, an artist from Birmingham, designed a logo for the Birmingham Cougars football team. After sharing, the team used a different stamp but similar to Clark's, which they used in the 1996-1998 seasons. Clark filed a copyright infringement suit against the Cougars for using his design without permission. The court found Cougars guilty and ruled that the team had improperly used Clark's design. Consequently, Cougars changed their logo for the subsequent season.
Nevertheless, they showed highlight films of the previous season on their arena, website, and TV channels. Clark sued the Cougars the second time for copyright infringement for showing film highlights with his designed logo. The defendants claimed that the law justified using the 1996-1998 highlights under the fair use doctrine. They also defended that Congress had no powers to institute laws to protect Clark's copyright because they were both citizens of Birmingham and that this did not qualify as interstate commerce upon which Congress reserves the authority to make laws. In this case, two crucial questions arise; whether the fair use doctrine protected Cougar's use of the logo in their films and whether the claim that Congress has no authority in state commerce is valid.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Is Cougar's use of the logo on the highlight films protected by the fair use doctrine?
The fair use doctrine protects Cougars' use of Clark's logo design in film highlights from the previous season. Congress inserted this clause into the Copyright Act of 1976 of the U.S Constitution to balance between the copyright holder's interests and those of the users. Therefore, it allows for unlicensed use of copyright of commentaries, search engines, criticism, caricature, news reporting, study, and scholarship (Aufderheide & Jaszi, 2020). A particular usage qualifies as fair use upon the application of four factors:
The drive and character of the use
The nature of the copyrighted material
The quantity and substantiality of the ratio used
The impact of the use upon the market of the original material
Samuelson (2015) reports that later the Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Inc case emphasized the purpose and extent of the usage to be critical in favoring the fair use law. At the center of this determination is transformative usage. Copyright would meet transformative criteria if it used for different purposes opposite to its original intended usage.
Additionally, the historical use aspect of the copyright influences the case. The film's showing is considered historical, which is regarded as a replica that is protected under the doctrine similar to the one used for criticism, teaching, broadcast report, and research. According to the four factors, the defendant's logo usage in the highlight films was not for commercial gains or transformative but historical. Therefore, Cougars' use of Clark's design is protected by the fair use doctrine.
Is the Cougar's claim that Congress does not have the power to regulate copyright within a single state valid?
According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, and 8 of the U.S Constitution, the defendant's claim is invalid. Article 1, Section 8 Clause 3 is the commerce clause that accords the Congress authority to control businesses with foreign nations, states, and Indian tribes (Klass & Rossi, 2015). These powers have facilitated commerce among states by instituting fair regulations for the country's good and not to the state alone. The law has evolved in its influence, providing clear demarcation of Congress powers from States'. Federal government interventions through its authority ensure states offer a favorable environment for trade through appropriate laws. Cougars' businesses are limited by Congress's influence to protect commerce and citizens from unfair transactions.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to facilitate the development of science and arts by safeguarding limited times to authors and inventors' exclusive rights to their materials (Taylor & Inman, 2017). Under this section, discoveries and writings are patented as intellectual property whose powers are held by Congress. Therefore, Clark's design within Birmingham is controlled by Congress.
References
Aufderheide, P., & Jaszi, P. (2020). Reclaiming fair use . University of Chicago Press.
Klass, A. B., & Rossi, J. (2015). Revitalizing Dormant Commerce Clause Review for Interstate Coordination. Minn. L. Rev. , 100 , 129.
Samuelson, P. (2015). Possible futures of fair use. Wash. L. Rev. , 90 , 815.
Taylor, E. J., & Inman, M. (2017). Looking at patent Law: Why are patents Often Referred to as Intellectual property?. The Electrochemical Society Interface , 26 (1), 41.
