Page:Code Revision Commission v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc. (F.Supp.3d).djvu/12

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
BAUMGARTNER v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CAS. CO.
Cite as 244 F.Supp.3d 1361 (N.D.Ga. 2017)
1361

annotations is through hard copy sales and licensing online access to the O.C.G.A. as permitted by the Agreement. Because Defendant has copied every word of the annotations verbatim and posted them free of charge, Defendant’s misappropriation destroys Lexis/Nexis’s ability to recover these costs. See Patton, 769 F.3d at 1275 (“Because Defendants’ use is nontransformative and fulfills the educational purposes that Plaintiffs, at least in part, market their works for, the threat of market substitution here is great and thus the fourth factor looms large in the overall fair use analysis.”). The revenues from such licensing reinforce the value of the O.C.G.A. and the damage that would be inflicted if the entire O.C.G.A. were made available for free.

v. Conclusion

The Court has weighed all of the Campbell factors and finds that at least three of the four factors weigh in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant. As a result, the Court concludes that Defendant has not met its burden of proving fair use, and Plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment.

IV. Conclusion

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 29] is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 30] is GRANTED. The parties are ORDERED to confer and to submit to the Court, within 14 days, a proposed briefing schedule to address the injunctive relief to which Plaintiffs are entitled as a result of the foregoing decision.

SO ORDERED, this 23rd day of March, 2017.

Rebecca T. BAUMGARTNER, Plaintiff,

v.

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-1993-RWS

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division.

Signed 03/21/2017