Case Name: William J. LATHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF WHITTIER, ALASKA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-21
Citations: 512 F. App'x 726
Docket Number: No. 11-35684
Parties: William J. LATHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF WHITTIER, ALASKA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 512
Pages: 726–727

Head Matter:
William J. LATHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF WHITTIER, ALASKA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-35684.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 21, 2013.
William J. Lathan, Anchorage, AK, pro se.
Laura L. Farley, Esquire, Jennifer S. Henderson, Esquire, Farley & Graves, P.C., Michael K. Nave, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General, State of Alaska, Anchorage, AK, for Defendants-Appel-lees.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
William J. Lathan appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Worth v. Selchow & Righter Co., 827 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because the Copyright Act's fair use defense bars Lathan's action. 17 U.S.C. § 107 (2006); see also Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1163 (9th Cir.2007) ("The [fair use] defense encourages and allows the development of new ideas that build on earlier ones, thus providing a necessary counterbalance to the copyright law's goal of protecting creators' work product."); id. at 1163-68 (explaining four-factor test for fair use analysis).
Because the district court properly made a finding of fair use, we need not review the district court's finding that the merger doctrine also bars Lathan's action.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.