News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on An Amaz-ing Resume. Parent comment

Re:An Amaz-ing Resume by dctoedt on Thursday January 24, 2013 @08:47AM (#5109441)
1. At least in the U.S., this is clearly fair use [1] [EDIT: for purposes of copyright law], first because the use is "transformative," and second because it will have zero impact on the market for authorized copies (or displays or performances) of (i) the original copyrighted work, namely the Amazon Web site; or (ii) licensed derivatives of the Amazon Web site. See the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, the "Oh Pretty Woman" parody case in which rappers 2 Live Crew prevailed [2].

2. If Amazon were to sue Philippe Dubost in the U.S. for infringement, the judge likely would toss out the case under the Supreme Court's Twombly/Iqbal doctrine [3], assuming Dubost filed a motion to dismiss --- I can't imagine how Amazon could plead a plausible case that the infringement had affected its market, as would be required by Twombly/Iqbal.

3. In the unlikely event that Amazon did sue Philippe Dubost in the U.S. for infringement, if Dubost won, he might very well be able to recover reasonable attorneys' fees from Amazon [4].

4. The resume suggests that Philippe Dubost is in Paris, so Amazon could sue in France for infringement of the French copyright; I don't know what the outcome would be in that case.

5. If someone at Amazon did want to file suit for infringement, the marketing people should throw their bodies in front of the train, because Amazon would be widely mocked. If anything, the resume's mimicry of the Amazon style provides (incremental) validation of Amazon's status as a First World icon.

5A. [EDIT:] On the trademark side, Amazon might have a plausible case against Dubost for "dilution" of a famous trademark, namely the totality of the Amazon Web site's look and feel. [5]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_I....

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Iqbal#Rule_8_pleadi...

[4] http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#505

[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:An Amaz-ing Resume by zacharyvoase on Thursday January 24, 2013 @09:38AM (#5109680)
Just out of interest, how do fair use doctrines interact with the subsequent assertion of copyright over the page itself?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:An Amaz-ing Resume by dctoedt on Thursday January 24, 2013 @09:50AM (#5109759)
> Just out of interest, how do fair use doctrines interact with the subsequent assertion of copyright over the page itself?

Addressing U.S. law only, and continuing the paragraph numbering of my comment above:

6. Dubost's fair use of Amazon's copyrighted work should not affect Amazon's copyright, even if Amazon didn't sue for infringement.

7. Dubost would have a copyright of his own, but only as to the "original" material that he contributed in his "fork" of Amazon's page; he would have no claim to copyright in Amazon's underlying work.

[ Parent | on HN ]