Faulkner Press, L.L.C. v. Class Notes, L.L.C.
756 F. Supp. 2d 1352
N.D. Fla.2010Background
- Faulkner Press sues Class Notes and Bean in a copyright dispute over two wildlife courses’ materials at the University of Florida; Faulkner holds copyrights via Dr. Moulton’s textbooks and lecture notes and seeks to enforce them against Class Notes for contributory infringement and vicarious liability.
- Class Notes publishes student note packages based on Dr. Moulton’s course materials; note takers generate summaries that Class Notes edits and sells.
- Disputed materials include Dr. Moulton’s 2007 lecture notes, associated film study questions, 2008 lecture sound recordings, and two electronic textbooks; Faulkner obtained registrations for these works.
- Counts Five and Six allege DMCA violations (removing or falsely identifying copyright management information), and Count Seven alleges violation of Florida’s name-use statute (section 540.08) by labeling notes with “Professor Moulton.”
- Count One and Two concern infringement based on practice and film study questions; Count Three covers remaining lecture-note materials and sound recordings, with partial dismissal of the sound-recording portion; Counts Four is withdrawn; Counts are resolved via partial summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Originality of film study and practice questions | Moulton’s selections are original, qualifying for protection. | Questions are factual compilations with minimal originality. | The film study and practice questions possess the minimal creativity and are protected. |
| Copying of practice questions | Note packages copied practice questions almost verbatim to aid students. | Only a small portion copied, but contextually significant. | Questionable substantial similarity; genuine issues of material fact remain for trial. |
| Sound recordings infringement | Faulkner asserts infringement via sound recordings. | Class Notes had no access to or distribution of sound recordings. | Count Three dismissed to the extent based on sound recordings; remaining issues pertain to lecture notes. |
| Fair use defense | Use of questions and summaries as study aids harms market and is not transformative. | Use may be fair given purpose, amount, and market impact; questions are factual compilations. | Genuine issues of material fact exist; fair use must be decided by a jury. |
| DMCA claims (Counts Five and Six) and use of Dr. Moulton's name (Count Seven) | Defendant removed/altered copyright management information and misused the name. | No removal or false information; no direct promotion by using the name. | Counts Five, Six, and Seven resolved in favor of Class Notes; no DMCA violation or improper name-use found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publications v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (minimal creativity required for originality in compilations)
- Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc., 79 F.3d 1532 (11th Cir. 1996) (substantial similarity standard for copying)
- Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2002) (substantial similarity; context matters when copying small portions)
- Leigh v. Warner Bros., 212 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2000) (standard for substantial similarity in copying)
- Higgins v. Baker, 309 F. Supp. 635 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) (qualitative importance of copied material can raise substantial similarity)