Case 1:12-cv-01340-JSR Document 84 Filed 07/03/14 Page 8 of 8
art”). Although White argues that Lexis and West impede a market for licensing briefs, the Court finds that no potential market exists because the transactions costs in licensing attorney works would be prohibitively high. Thus on net, the fourth factor weighs in favor of defendants and a finding of fair use.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the defendants’ use of plaintiff’s brief was a fair use. The Court therefore reaffirms its Order of February 11, 2013, granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint with prejudice, and to close the case.
- SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, NY
July 3, 2014
JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.
8
