Pearson Education, Inc. v. Ishayev
963 F. Supp. 2d 239
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Four textbook publishers sued pro se defendants Lazar Ishayev and Yelena Leykina for selling unauthorized electronic copies of instructors’ solutions manuals online; plaintiffs seek injunctions and damages.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigator (Siewert) purchased six manuals via email/website transactions between 2010–2011; three were delivered as emailed zip-file attachments, three were obtained via hyperlinks to files hosted on filesonic.com.
- Plaintiffs produced only heavily redacted one‑page excerpts of each disputed solutions manual; plaintiffs own registered copyrights in the underlying textbooks and claim the manuals are derivative works.
- Defendants deny uploading the files to filesonic; Ishayev admits emailing zip files and using PayPal but denies uploading linked files; Leykina denies participation and asserts Ishayev used her PayPal account.
- Court considered cross-motions for summary judgment: plaintiffs’ on infringement; defendants’ (Ishayev & Leykina) on all claims; Ishayev counterclaimed for libel.
- Court denied summary judgment as to Ishayev (insufficient unredacted evidence to show more‑than‑de minimis copying and factual dispute whether he uploaded hyperlink-hosted files), granted summary judgment for Leykina (no evidence she copied or uploaded manuals), and dismissed Ishayev’s libel counterclaim with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are the instructors’ solutions manuals copyrightable derivative works? | Manuals are elaborations/answers to textbook problems and meet the low originality threshold for derivative works. | Defendants did not contest derivative status materially; focus on other defenses. | Held: Manuals qualify as derivative works (low originality threshold satisfied). |
| Can plaintiffs sue for infringement of unregistered derivative works absent showing overlap with registered work? | Owner of registered work can enforce rights against unauthorized derivative copying broadly. | Defendants: infringement of unregistered derivative work must be measured by overlap with registered underlying work. | Held: Owner may sue only to the extent the derivative work reproduces protected material from the registered work; majority approach adopted. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate on infringement given the record? | Plaintiffs: purchase/downloads and attached files/links prove copying and distribution by defendants. | Defendants: record is incomplete (redacted manuals), factual disputes (who uploaded links), and hyperlinks alone do not equal copying. | Held: Denied for Ishayev — plaintiffs failed to show unredacted overlap (de minimis issue) and factual dispute over uploading; granted for Leykina — no evidence she copied/uploaded files. |
| Do emailed hyperlinks alone constitute copyright infringement? | Plaintiffs imply links facilitating downloads are tantamount to distribution. | Defendants: hyperlinking is merely directing users and does not itself copy or distribute protected content. | Held: Hyperlinks alone do not constitute direct infringement; liability could attach if defendant uploaded the files (disputed for Ishayev). |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Crichton, 84 F.3d 581 (2d Cir.) (defines elements of copyright infringement)
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (originality requirement for copyright)
- Arista Records, LLC v. Doe 3, 604 F.3d 110 (2d Cir.) (scope of §106 rights and online infringement principles)
- Castle Rock Entm’t, Inc. v. Carol Publ’g Group, Inc., 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir.) (derivative works/right to prepare derivative works)
- Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir.) (hyperlinking/HTML instructions do not equal display or copying per se)
- Tufenkian Imp./Exp. Ventures, Inc. v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 338 F.3d 127 (2d Cir.) (de minimis copying standard in infringement)
- Waldman Publ’g Corp. v. Landoll, Inc., 43 F.3d 775 (2d Cir.) (low originality threshold for derivative works)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) (permanent injunction requires traditional equitable factors)