Copyright Infringement

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Jesus Muhammad-Ali v. Final Call, Inc.

Case No.: 15-2963

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and POSNER and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Copyright Infringement

District court misstated the elements of copyright infringement

“In coming to the opposite conclusion, the district court re‐ lied on the Seventh Circuit pattern instruction for “copying,” which notes that the jury “may consider evidence that Dfendant’s work was created independently of Plaintiff’s copy‐ righted work [or that Defendant had authority from Plaintiff to copy Plaintiff’s work].” The instruction is either unclear or erroneous. There are two methods of proving “copying”: (1) “that the defendant had the opportunity to copy the original (often called ‘access’)”; and (2) “that the two works are ‘substantially similar,’ thus permitting an inference that the defendant actually did copy the original.” Peters, 692 F.3d at 633. For the “opportunity” method, “independent creation is a defense to copyright infringement,” though a plaintiff must pro‐ vide “evidence of access.” Id. at 635. The pattern instruction may have been meant to rephrase this method of proof, but it falls short of doing so and invites the error we see here.”

Reversed and Remanded

Full Text

Attorney Derek A. Hawkins is the managing partner at Hawkins Law Offices LLC, where he heads up the firm’s startup law practice. He specializes in business formation, corporate governance, intellectual property protection, private equity and venture capital funding and mergers & acquisitions. Check out the website at www.hawkins-lawoffices.com or contact them at 262-737-8825.