Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 79 views

    Conclusion: Random House, Inc. V. Rosetta Books LLC

    Uploaded by

    GiladLindefeld
    This document is a court opinion from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding a copyright infringement case between Random House, Inc. and Rosetta Books LLC. The court denied Random House's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that (1) licenses granting the right to publish works "in book form" likely did not cover electronic publication on the internet, and (2) the balance of hardships did not favor Random House. The case involved determining whether Rosetta Books infringed on Random House's exclusive licenses to distribute fiction works in book form by publishing them as e-books online through other license agreements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Conclusion: Random House, Inc. V. Rosetta Books LLC

    Uploaded by

    GiladLindefeld
    79 views1 page
    This document is a court opinion from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding a copyright infringement case between Random House, Inc. and Rosetta Books LLC. The court denied Random House's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that (1) licenses granting the right to publish works "in book form" likely did not cover electronic publication on the internet, and (2) the balance of hardships did not favor Random House. The case involved determining whether Rosetta Books infringed on Random House's exclusive licenses to distribute fiction works in book form by publishing them as e-books online through other license agreements.

    Original Description:

    ff

    Original Title

    150_F.Supp.2d_613 (dragged)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a court opinion from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding a copyright infringement case between Random House, Inc. and Rosetta Books LLC. The court denied Random House's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that (1) licenses granting the right to publish works "in book form" likely did not cover electronic publication on the internet, and (2) the balance of hardships did not favor Random House. The case involved determining whether Rosetta Books infringed on Random House's exclusive licenses to distribute fiction works in book form by publishing them as e-books online through other license agreements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    79 views1 page

    Conclusion: Random House, Inc. V. Rosetta Books LLC

    Uploaded by

    GiladLindefeld
    This document is a court opinion from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding a copyright infringement case between Random House, Inc. and Rosetta Books LLC. The court denied Random House's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that (1) licenses granting the right to publish works "in book form" likely did not cover electronic publication on the internet, and (2) the balance of hardships did not favor Random House. The case involved determining whether Rosetta Books infringed on Random House's exclusive licenses to distribute fiction works in book form by publishing them as e-books online through other license agreements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    RANDOM HOUSE, INC. v.

    ROSETTA BOOKS LLC


    Cite as 150 F.Supp.2d 613 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)

    and there is no suggestion that Congress


    intended a contrary meaning. To hold
    otherwise would make the remedy illusory
    and the statute, therefore, ineffective. No
    such purpose should be attributed to Congress on the legislative record presented
    here.
    Accordingly, the State Defendants motion for judgment on the pleadings as to
    the individual State Defendants is also denied.
    Conclusion
    For the foregoing reasons, the State
    Defendants motion is denied in all respects.
    SO ORDERED.

    ,
    RANDOM HOUSE, INC., Plaintiff,
    v.
    ROSETTA BOOKS LLC and Arthur M.
    Klebanoff, in his individual capacity
    and as principal of Rosetta Books
    LLC, Defendants.
    No. 01 CIV. 1728(SHS).
    United States District Court,
    S.D. New York.
    July 11, 2001.
    Exclusive licensee of right to distribute copyrighted works of fiction in book
    form brought copyright infringement action against alleged infringer, publishing
    works as e books on Internet pursuant
    4a: persons in command; specif: governmentnow usu. used in pl. in the concrete
    [the local authorities of each state] and sing.

    613

    to other license agreements. Exclusive licensee sought preliminary injunction. The


    District Court, Stein, J., held that: (1) exclusive licensee was not likely to prevail on
    claim that licenses conferring right to publish in book form covered publication in
    electronic form on Internet, and (2) balance of hardships did not favor exclusive
    licensee.
    Injunction motion denied.
    1. Federal Courts O412.1
    Interpretation of an agreement purporting to grant a copyright license is a
    matter of state contract law.

    2. Contracts O143(2)
    Under New York law, contract language is ambiguous if it is capable of
    more than one meaning when viewed objectively by a reasonably intelligent person
    who has examined the context of the entire
    integrated agreement and who is cognizant
    of the customs, practices, usages and terminology as generally understood in the
    particular trade or business. N.Y.McKinneys Uniform Commercial Code 2202,
    comment 1.
    See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions
    and definitions.

    3. Contracts O176(2)
    Evidence O448
    Under New York law, if the language
    of a contract is ambiguous, interpretation
    of the contract becomes a question of fact
    for the finder of fact and extrinsic evidence
    is admissible.
    4. Copyrights and Intellectual Property
    O48
    License permitting dissemination of
    copyrighted work in particular medium exin the abstract [the public ~ is responsible for
    our protection]).

    You might also like