659 F.2d 963: Universal City Studios, Inc. a Corporation, Dba Universaltelevision and Universal Pictures, and Walt Disneyproductions, a Corporation, Appellantsand Cross-appellees, v. Sony Corporation of America, a Corporation, the Sonycorporation, a Corporation, Carter Hawley Hale Stores, Inc.,a Corporation, Associated Dry Goods Corporation, Acorporation, Federated Department Stores, Inc., Acorporation, Henry's Camera Corporation, a Corporation,doyle Dane Bernbach, Inc., a Corporation, and Williamgriffiths, Appellees and Cross-appellants
More Sharing ServicesShare|
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. - 659 F.2d 963
Argued and Submitted Feb. 6, 1981.Decided Oct. 19, 1981.Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied Jan. 12, 1982
Stephen A. Kroft (on brief), John G. Davies and Sondra E. Beechim Rosenfeld, Meyer & Susman, Beverly Hills, Cal., argued, for Universal Studios and Walt Disney.
Dean C. Dunlavey, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, Cal., for Sony, Sony America, Doyle, Dane, Bembach.
Appeal from the United States District Court Central District of California.
Before KILKENNY and CANBY, Circuit Judges, and EAST, District Judge.*
KILKENNY, Circuit Judge:
1Appellants, Universal City Studios, Inc. (Universal) and Walt Disney Productions (Disney), producers and copyright owners of audiovisual materials, some of which they choose to telecast over the public airwaves, brought this copyright infringement claim against Sony Corporation (Sony), the manufacturer of the Betamax, a videotape recorder (VTR), and Betamax tapes, Sony Corporation of America (Sonam) (the American distributor of the Betamax), four retail establishments that sell the Betamax, Doyle Dane Bernbach, Inc. (DDBI) (the advertising agency retained by Sonam to promote the Betamax), and one individual (William Griffiths), who is an owner and user of the Betamax.
2Appellants argue that home video recording of their copyrighted works constitutes copyright infringement and that the corporate defendants are liable as direct, contributory and/or vicarious infringers. Additionally, appellants contend that the retail defendants violated the copyright laws when they recorded portions of appellants' programs to demonstrate the Betamax to a prospective purchaser. Likewise, appellants presented additional claims arising under state law and sought broad injunctive relief, as well as profits and damages. The district court, after three years of litigation and a five week nonjury trial, in the reported case of Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Sony Corp. of America, 480 F.Supp. 429 (C.D.Cal.1979), entered judgment for appellees and held:
3(1) that copyright holders of audiovisual materials, some of which are sold for telecast over public airwaves, did not have monopoly power over off-the-air copying of those materials by owners of a videotape recorder in their homes for private, non-commercial use;
4(2) the retailer did not infringe upon the copyrights where it did not compete with nor profit from materials and intended only to demonstrate the recorder;
5(3) even if home-use copyrighting constituted an infringement, neither manufacturers, distributors, retailers, nor advertisers were liable under theories of direct or contributory infringement, or vicarious liability;
6(4) that even if the appellees were deemed liable, injunctive relief was not available where they did not unfairly compete with owners of copyrighted materials, nor interfere with their advantageous business relations.
8The district court in its elaborate, painstaking, and thoughtful opinion, Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp. of America, supra, at 432, 442, carefully outlined the facts and the parties' contentions. In our view it would be a complete waste of judicial time and effort and of no benefit to the Bench or Bar to here repeat those facts and contentions.
10I. Does off-the-air copying of copyrighted audiovisual materials by owners of a videotape recorder in their homes for private noncommercial use constitute an infringement?
11II. Are the corporate appellees liable for infringement under any of the theories advanced?
12III. If appellants are entitled to prevail, the nature of the relief to be granted.
13IV. Retail store use of the copyrighted material.
14V. Unfair competition claims under 15 U.S.C.
Zeige deinen Freunden, dass dir Man Against the World von Original Motion Picture Soundtrack gefällt: