Friday, August 15. 2008

Open Source Legal Ruling Means Monetary Damages for Copyright Infringement

I saw this yesterday, but needed to find an explanation I understood before writing about. Thankfully, my favorite lawyer on IP issues, Andy Updegrove (I met him when I consulted to OGC and he spoke at Directions Media's Location Intelligence Conference in past years), is interviewed by Computerworld, so now I can explain it!

Here's the case:

Kam Industries used some open source code that allows train folks to program chips in model trains. The code was released un an Artistic License. That's not one I know much about - but it's OSI approved and has a copyright from the PERL Foundation. That license requires users to "give credit to the author, identify the original source of the files and describe how the new code has been changed, among other conditions."

The author of the code, Robert Jacobsen felt Kam Industries violated the terms and violated the software's copyright. A requested injunction to stop Kam from using the software was denied in US District Court. The news this week: the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the ruling.

The big deal: when infringement happens, the infringee (the holder of the license) can argue copyright copyright infringement not just breach of contract. Why's that significant? Now to Mr. Updegrove:

That distinction is important, says Andy Updegrove, an attorney with Gesmer Updegrove LLP in Boston who studies licensing issues. Under contract law, the remedy is monetary damages, which aren't likely to amount to anything involving open-source software that is given away, Updegrove says.

However, statutory damages - money awarded for a violation of law - can be awarded for copyright infringement without requiring proof of monetary damages, Updegrove says. Also, people can recover attorney fees for copyright infringement cases, he says.

"And, most importantly for licences such as the GPL, it means that your rights to use the copyrighted work at all disappear," Updegrove says, referring to the General Public License, widely used for open source software.

Posted by Adena Schutzberg in Open Source at 08:18 | Comment (1) | Trackbacks (0) |

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

"And, most importantly for licences such as the GPL, it means that your rights to use the copyrighted work at all disappear," Updegrove says.

I really don't see how that follows at all. It's certainly good news for people releasing software under GPL as it gives a stronger means of enforcing breaches (under US law at least) but use of copyright software done under the terms of the GPL isn't copyright infringement - the holder of the copyright has explicitly licensed that use.

#1 tallpaul (Link) on 2008-08-19 02:12 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to	[ Top level ]#1: tallpaul on 2008-08-19 02:12
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information?   Subscribe to this entry