Part 2- Crimes and Torts, Chapter 8: Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition, Doc 6

The passage provides an analysis of the fair use doctrine through the Bouchat v. Baltimore Ravens Ltd. Partnership case, focusing on the four factors used to assess fair use and their application in copyright infringement cases. Here’s a summary: 1. Fair Use Doctrine: The fair use defense allows certain uses of copyrighted works, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Courts evaluate fair use based on four factors: o Purpose and Character of the Use: Examines if the use is commercial or nonprofit and whether it transforms the original work with new meaning or message. o Nature of the Copyrighted Work: Creative works are usually more protected, while factual works might favor fair use. o Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used: Using the entire work generally weighs against fair use, unless it's transformative. o Effect on the Market: Considers whether the use harms the potential market for the original work or replaces it. 2. Case Background: Frederick Bouchat created the "Shield logo" for the Baltimore Ravens, which the team used without licensing his design. Although they changed their logo in 1999, the "Flying B" logo, similar to Bouchat’s, continued to appear in various contexts, such as season highlight films and a lobby collage. Bouchat sued, arguing that the logo's appearance in these contexts infringed his copyright. The Ravens and the NFL claimed fair use as a defense. 3. Application of Fair Use Factors: o Highlight Films:  The purpose was deemed commercial (sold as entertainment), which didn’t align with fair use purposes like news reporting or research.  The nature of the work, being creative, weighed against fair use.  The amount used was the entire logo, counting against fair use as the films merely depicted the logo without transformation.  The market effect showed potential harm, as unauthorized use could undermine the market for licensed logos. Ultimately, the court concluded that using the logo in highlight films was not fair use. o Lobby Display:  The purpose was educational and historical, likened to a museum exhibit, making it more transformative and noncommercial.  The nature of the work, being creative, slightly weighed against fair use, but was less significant due to its historical use.  The amount used (the entire logo) was necessary to preserve the historical context, rendering this factor neutral. Market effect was negligible due to the noncommercial, educational display. This use was ruled fair use. 4. Conclusion: The court partially upheld and reversed the district court's decision, finding that the lobby display qualified as fair use due to its educational and noncommercial nature, while the commercial highlight films did not meet fair use standards. 