11 Cited authorities

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
510 U.S. 517 (1994) Cited 2,823 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
510 U.S. 569 (1994) Cited 629 times 71 Legal Analyses
Holding that “[i]t was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of [a secondary work] rendered it presumptively unfair”
Matthew Bender Co., Inc. v. West Pub. Co.
240 F.3d 116 (2d Cir. 2001) Cited 206 times
Finding that "[t]his emphasis on objective reasonableness is firmly rooted in Fogerty's admonition that any factor a court considers in deciding whether to award attorneys' fees must be faithful to the purposes of the Copyright Act"
Baker v. Urban Outfitters, Inc.
431 F. Supp. 2d 351 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) Cited 89 times
Finding unreasonableness where plaintiff "maintained demand for more than $260,000 in ‘actual damages’ on a claim that was shown fairly promptly not to be worth more than $3896."
Rodriguez v. McLoughlin
84 F. Supp. 2d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) Cited 83 times
Finding a request for fees by attorneys who spent an hour or less working on a case "unreasonable, as it is unlikely that counsel could have made a meaningful contribution to the case in such a brief period of time."
Hnot v. Willis Group Holdings Ltd.
01 Civ. 6558 (GEL) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 7, 2008) Cited 52 times
Finding "$150 per hour as a reasonable rate for paralegals in this District"
Diamond v. Am-Law Pub. Corp.
745 F.2d 142 (2d Cir. 1984) Cited 87 times
Holding that where the plaintiff's copyright infringement claim was without a reasonable legal basis, an award of attorney's fees to the defendants was a proper exercise of judicial discretion
J.S. Nicol, Inc. v. Peking Handicraft, Inc.
03 Civ. 1548 (GBD) (AJP) (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2008) Cited 29 times
Rejecting proportionality rule in context of attorney's fee request under 28 U.S.C. § 505
Eagle Serv. Corp. v. H20 Ind. Serv
532 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2008) Cited 13 times
Concluding that a "suit was frivolous even if there was a copyright violation" because the plaintiff was "just suing for money and he ha[d] no ground at all for obtaining a money judgment"
Blanch v. Koons
485 F. Supp. 2d 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) Cited 2 times
No. 03 Civ. 8026 (LLS). May 9, 2007. Cinque Cinque (Robert W. Cinque, of Counsel), New York City, for Plaintiff. The Koegel Group LLP (John B. Koegel, of Counnsel), New York City, for Defendant Jeff Koons. Cleary Gottlieb Steen Hamilton LLP (Lawrence B. Friedman, of Counsel), New York City, for Defendant The Solomon R. Guggenheim Foundation. White Case (Steven Betensky, Carol Witschel, Stefan Mentzer, of Counsel), for Defendant Deutsche Bank AG. OPINION and ORDER STANTON, District Judge. Defendants
Section 108 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Reproduction by libraries and archives
17 U.S.C. § 108 Cited 37 times 3 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting systematic reproduction of “the same material”

The Authors Guild, Inc. et al v. Hathitrust et al

11 Cited authorities

Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988

Holding that “[i]t was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude that the commercial nature of [a secondary work] rendered it presumptively unfair”

Finding that "[t]his emphasis on objective reasonableness is firmly rooted in Fogerty's admonition that any factor a court considers in deciding whether to award attorneys' fees must be faithful to the purposes of the Copyright Act"

Finding unreasonableness where plaintiff "maintained demand for more than $260,000 in ‘actual damages’ on a claim that was shown fairly promptly not to be worth more than $3896."

Finding a request for fees by attorneys who spent an hour or less working on a case "unreasonable, as it is unlikely that counsel could have made a meaningful contribution to the case in such a brief period of time."

Finding "$150 per hour as a reasonable rate for paralegals in this District"

Holding that where the plaintiff's copyright infringement claim was without a reasonable legal basis, an award of attorney's fees to the defendants was a proper exercise of judicial discretion

Rejecting proportionality rule in context of attorney's fee request under 28 U.S.C. § 505

Concluding that a "suit was frivolous even if there was a copyright violation" because the plaintiff was "just suing for money and he ha[d] no ground at all for obtaining a money judgment"

Prohibiting systematic reproduction of “the same material”