Source: https://fairuse.stanford.edu/texaco/reply/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:33:23+00:00

Document:
Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass.
(2d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S.
F.2d 657 (2d Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S.
Richard Anderson Photography v. Brown, 1990 U.S.
United States Lighterage & Towing Corp. v.
C. Wright & A. Miller, 5 Federal Prac. & Proc.
REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT TEXACO INC.
use of the letters is fair, then permission was not necessary."
(See Texaco's Brief ("Tex. Br.") 40).
publishers refuse to license would invariably be fair use.
copyrighted material -- circumstances totally absent here.
value of the copyrighted work," not the effect on the user.
any event, the record is plain that, just as Texaco can "afford"
widespread" (A. 148), can equally "afford" not to be paid.
instead of the evidence that plaintiffs believe supports it.
Arica Inst., Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067, 1077 (2d Cir. 1992).
contrary to this Court's rulings in New Era and Arica.
ing [eight] articles, selected by plaintiffs, was a fair use."
once."  (Tex. Br. 3 n.1).
of which was copied in this manner.
commercial exploitation of the copies.
approach has been squarely and soundly rejected by this Circuit.
with other factors in fair use decisions.
use was held to be fair have involved for-profit users.
parodist's use of the parodied work in a song (Elsmere, Berlin).
copies in any direct fashion.
eight articles) at Syracuse University pursuant to a U.S.
government grant.  (Wall St. J., February 17, 1993, at B3).
any direct relationship to a commercial activity.
making of a single copy of eight articles was "a commercial use,"
is not, ipso facto, disqualified from fair use protection."  (Pl.
remote relationship to any commercial exploitation by Texaco.
assert that Texaco did not pay the "customary" price (Pl. Br.
as a "customary" price.  (A. 336, 340, 2031).
research purpose and character of Dr. Chickering's copying.
course, is not Texaco's position.
competition with the originals and did not supersede their use.
to be fair.  (See Tex. Br. 22-23).  As we also pointed out (Tex.
definition of fair use a reference to "reproduction in copies"
original use has been superseded.
Tex. Br. 24-25).  No such evidence exists.
Texaco and made no effort to do so with respect to Catalysis.
company that had as many subscriptions as Texaco.
be that photocopying has become 'reasonable and customary'"  (A.
the work and occasionally to quote directly from such works."
the custom, in fact, existed.
making motivation of the company in which the library is located.
is demonstrably not the case.  (See pp. ___, supra).
Consumers Union is still a viable precedent.  (A. 102-03).
been no adverse effect on sale of the original work.  (See Tex.
Era, 904 F.2d at 157) and that the eight articles are factual.
ples."  Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 111 S.
tiffs identify as the "highly original, creative and imaginative"
such articles.  (See, e.g., 17 U.S.C.  102 (a)-(b)).
which the articles were published.
Williams & Wilkins, that the use of the entire works was fair.
copying a page or two from it.
impair[ed] the marketability of the work which is copied.'"
on Random House's publication of his letters.  (See Tex. Br. 36).
plaintiffs do not -- and cannot -- say.
scriptions to Catalysis" (A. 114) is based on an "unrealistic"
Pl. Br. 68 citing Pl. Br. 14-15).
or thereby eliminated the need for subscriptions.
two originals were circulated to the researchers on the list.
eight articles.  (See Tex. Br. 32).
Judge Leval's decision is that promptness matters to scientists.
delivery of a copy of a case or law review article.
wound weighs heavily against such a claim.
cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1088 (1987).
use can be obtained easily, quickly, and at reasonable fees."
Clearance Center v. Commissioner, 79 T.C. 793, 805 (1982).
surprisingly, that it is neither fair to users nor efficient.
reasonable and efficient, not the trial court's speculations (A.
132) which are unhinged from any record support.
or the copyright owner."  (A. 2060-61).
26.4% at Amoco.  (A. 4329; see also A. 311-12, 2021, 3807).
acknowledged are associated with negotiating individual licenses.
to large corporations like Texaco.  (A. 2054-55, 2061, 3848).
publishers claim copyright and those in which they do not.  (A.
publication.  (A. 322-24; see, e.g., A. 3702, 3869, 3887).
that the affiliation of the author is listed in the article (Pl.
too low to justify their entering into agreements with the CCC,"
a collective system."  (A. 2021).
its AAS license."  (See A. 1423B).
43).  While they claim that this is a "necessary tradeoff" (Pl.
government grant issues of copyrightability and ownership.  (A.
the judiciary is particularly ill-equipped.  (See Tex. Br. 42).
instance, legislative, not judicial.  (See Tex. Br. 41-43).
an important role in the advancement of scientific knowledge.
a practice that causes them no real world injury.
Court determine plaintiffs' proofs of claim in Texaco's favor.
plaintiff, sold excerpts of plaintiff's work); Stewart v.
plaintiff's short story); Financial Information, Inc. v.
(defendant copied and sold part of plaintiff's work), cert.
unpublished letters and used them in book it sold), cert.
Tech Video Prod., Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC Inc., 804 F.
Comics, Inc. v. Unlimited Monkey Business, Inc., 598 F.
plaintiffs provide on the preceding page of their brief (Pl.
Br. 66), which involve defendants who "sold," "publish[ed],"
plaintiffs fail to cite any case that analyzes the issue.
A. Miller, 5 Federal Prac. & Proc.  1271, at 315-16 (1990).
Exceeding 50 Pages, at p. 2.
an Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Appellant Texaco Inc.
affirmance by this Court would cause.
factor, is contrary to the law of this Circuit.
of President Ford's memoirs, and in Basic Books (758 F.
tition with the plaintiff publishers.
weighs in favor of Accolade."
9.   For example, in Allen-Myland, Inc. v. IBM Corp., 746 F.
to the defendant as a result.
and Becton-Dickenson.  (Compare A. 2326 with TEX-39).
sale, and thus superseded its use.
registration fee (recently increased to $20).  (Pl. Br. 61).
published in collective works or compilations.
evidence."  United States Lighterage & Towing Corp. v.
move it along.  (See Tex. Br. 34 n.16).
the number of subscriptions that Beacon had to Catalysis (A.
Dr. Chickering's testimony that circulation "sped . . . up"
19.  As for the other evidence cited in Texaco's brief (Tex.
never earned any significant revenues from such services.
the CCC's documents, which belie Judge Leval's conclusions.
(A. 84, 86 & n.6).
total number of copies to client for each reporting period.
report with "relative ease."  (Pl. Br. 27-28).
his or her duties.  17 U.S.C.  105.  (See also A. 1032-33).
& H Computer Sys., Inc. v. SAS Inst., Inc., 568 F. Supp.
416, 418-19 (M.D. Tenn. 1983).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.