The legal side of book and magazine publishing has been off to a fast start in 2015. Check out updates below on three of the most recent cases.

Cosmopolitan Magazine

Andrew Cerett, a former Temple University football player, filed a lawsuit against his ex-girlfriend, Emily Frazer, and Cosmopolitan magazine for defamation, claiming that the magazine ruined his reputation and his potential NFL career after publishing an article entitled, “My Ex Threatened to Kill Me. Why Wasn’t He Expelled,” which appeared in the October 2014 issue.

Cerett and Frazer met each other at Temple University where Cerett was a punter on the school’s football team and Frazer played on the volleyball team. Cerett’s complaint, however, centers on the end of their relationship. Cerett states that Frazer wrote the article with freelance writer Roxanne Patel Shepleavy, which included a photo of Cerett as well as a fictionalized story of how they ended their relationship “at an alcohol-fueled weekend dorm party on or about January 21, 2011,” according to the complaint.

In his own story, however, Cerett claims that both parties became angry with each other, and although Cerett slammed his fist on a kitchen table, he never harmed Frazer. Campus officials arrested Cerrett, but they did not press charges against him. The campus board found Cerett guilty of intimidation and disorderly conduct but did not charge him with stalking or harassment.

Frazer’s article contends that after the breakup, Cerett had a mission to destroy Frazer, and the complaint states that the article portrayed Cerett as a violent thug. In light of the recent domestic violence cases against several NFL players, most notably Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson, Cerett believes that the Cosmo article may prevent him from pursuing his lifelong dream of becoming an NFL player because NFL teams would not want to draft him or sign him as a free agent.

HathiTrust

Last week, the Authors Guild dropped its lawsuit against HathiTrust. In 2011, the Authors Guild sued HathiTrust because it believe it created a database that included millions of unauthorized scans created by Google. The federal district court, however, sided with HathiTrust, and the United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals soon reaffirmed the district court’s decision.  Publishers Weekly noted that HathiTrust would notify the Authors Guild if it decides to change its practices in the next five years.

Georgia State University

In a related case that publishers have been keenly watching in Cambridge University Press et al. v. Patton et al., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff publishers’ request to hear the case en banc by every judge in the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit originally only had a panel of three judges hear the case. The request was unusual because the three-judge panel held in favor of the publishers after reversing the federal district court’s decision. The suit originally commenced when three academic publishers, Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and SAGE Publications, sued Georgia State University for allegedly engaging in authorized copying and distribution of copyrighted works by the publishers through GSU’s e-reserve system.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 2015 Is Off To A Fast Start for the Legal Side of Publishing appeared first on Law Street.

The book publishing industry has had its fair share of legal disputes this year, from the consumer class-action lawsuits against the big-6 publishers to the HathiTrust case, which dealt with new fair use parameters in the digital book world.

To round out a busy year, it’s fitting that the past week was one of the busiest weeks of the year for the legal side of book publishing.

On Monday, the book publishing industry had its most important court date of the year. The Second Circuit listened to oral arguments regarding Apple’s appeal of a district court’s decision that found Apple guilty of fixing e-book prices with the big-5 publishers.

According to Publishers Weekly, Apple’s attorney, Theodore Boutros, argued that the district court erred in deciding that Apple was liable in its role in a “per se” case of price fixing in the e-book market. In antitrust law, “per se” means a violation that prevents further scrutiny of the conspiracy’s intent on the market (i.e., the effect on the market). Boutros argued that the district court should have applied a “rule by reason” framework in deciding its case, which would have taken into consideration Apple’s pro-competitive involvement in the e-book market.

The appeal also involved the big-5 publishers–Penguin and Random House merged earlier this year. Simon and Schuster’s and Macmillan’s attorneys argued that the district court’s final order should be reversed because the order extended Simon and Schuster’s and Macmillan’s original two-year “cooling off” period to four years, and the extension would hinder the publishers’ negotiations with other retailers.

The Second Circuit’s decision should be announced anywhere from a few weeks to a few months from now.

In other big year-end news, on Tuesday, Jesse Ventura continues his fight in his defamation lawsuit. Last summer, Ventura sued the estate of the late Chris Kyle for writing defamatory words about Ventura in Kyle’s book, “American Sniper: The Autobiography of the Most Lethal Sniper in U.S. Military History.” Ventura claimed that Kyle wrote that Ventura, who is a former Navy SEAL, said that the Navy SEALs “deserved to lose a few.” Kyle also alleged that he had a fistfight with Ventura. Ventura denied both allegations, and Ventura later won $1.8 million in damages, consisting of $1.3 million for unjust enrichment and $500,000 in damages.

In the latest turn of events, Ventura has set his sights on Kyle’s publisher, HarperCollins. According to the Washington Post, Ventura has claimed that Kyle’s tale of the bar fight incident increased sales of his book, which generated millions of dollars for HarperCollins. The Los Angeles Times reports that Ventura seeks $150,000 in damages, though he will likely ask for more in settlement negotiations with HarperCollins.

Ventura received criticism for continuing with his lawsuit after Kyle passed away, but Ventura claims according to CBS News, “All I wanted to do was clear my name…It has nothing to do with a widow or anything like that.” Ventura added “I would have been a big-time loser had I not pursued the lawsuit, because…the whole story was fabricated…I was accused of treason, which in the military is the death penalty.”

With all the current activity currently before the courts, 2015 seems to be an eventful year for book publishing.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Year in Review: The Legal Side of Book Publishing appeared first on Law Street.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently heard oral arguments about the long-fought Google Books case between Google and the Authors Guild.

This case has been trudging through the courts for nearly a decade. In 2005, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) separately sued Google on claims that it violated their respective copyrights on the Google Books database. Google claimed, however, that its database was a fair use.

The lawsuits were then consolidated, but AAP eventually settled out of court with Google. The Authors Guild continued its lawsuit against Google but later agreed to settle for $125 million. The Authors Guild and Google tried to amend their settlement, but the settlement was rejected.

Around this time, the Authors Guild filed a similar lawsuit against HathiTrust but lost on summary judgment.

Nevertheless, the Authors Guild/Google lawsuit carried on into federal court, but the Authors Guild met a similar fate as it did against HathiTrust and lost to Google via summary judgment last year.

According to Publishers Weekly, Google won its summary judgment motion partly because of its fair use argument. The court favored Google in three out of the four fair use factors. The four fair use factors are 1) the purpose and character of the use; 2) the nature of the copyrighted work; 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken; and 4) the effect of the use on the potential market. Google won on the first, second, and fourth factors because its scanning was a transformative use, 93 percent of the scanned works were nonfiction, and Google didn’t sell the books it scanned although it benefited financially from the web traffic caused by Google Books.

The Authors Guild then appealed to the Second Circuit.

Oral Argument

Andrew Albanese writes that the Authors Guild tried to differentiate the Google Books lawsuit from the HathiTrust lawsuit by arguing that Google Books was a commercial use, but the Second Circuit shot that argument down. Judge Pierre Leval said that transformative use was what mattered the most–the first factor. The Authors Guild also argued that Google should not be allowed to profit from its database of unlicensed works, and that Google Books differed from HathiTrust because Google Books offered snippets of the works, whereas HathiTrust did not display the works made available via searching.

Google argued for fair use and asserted that Google Books progressed the arts and sciences. Moreover, Google argued that Google Books created no market harm. Although users flock to Google because of Google Books, Google Books serves an educational purpose.

The Second Circuit did not mention when it would render a decision.

Analysis

Considering the court dismissed the Authors’ Guild argument that Google and HathiTrust could be distinguished via the first fair use factor, the Authors Guild has a tough challenge in attempting to reverse the district court’s decision in favor of Google. I have not listened to the oral argument, but by reading Albanese’s aforementioned article, it does not look good for the Authors Guild.

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Second Circuit Hears Oral Arguments in Google Books Case appeared first on Law Street.