Scribd
Upload
159 views1 page

Sony v. Universal: Fair Use Ruling

Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) Universal City Studios owned copyrights to television programs and sued Sony, alleging that Sony contributed to copyright infringement by consumers who used Sony's video tape recorders to record television broadcasts. The Supreme Court ruled that Sony did not contributorily infringe Universal's copyrights because time-shifting television programs for private viewing was a fair use and did not harm the market for Universal's works.

Uploaded by

Angel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
159 views1 page

Sony v. Universal: Fair Use Ruling

Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) Universal City Studios owned copyrights to television programs and sued Sony, alleging that Sony contributed to copyright infringement by consumers who used Sony's video tape recorders to record television broadcasts. The Supreme Court ruled that Sony did not contributorily infringe Universal's copyrights because time-shifting television programs for private viewing was a fair use and did not harm the market for Universal's works.

Uploaded by

Angel
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S.

417 (1984)

FACTS:

Petitioner Sony Corp manufactured and sold home video tape recorders. Respondents owned the copyrights to television

programs broadcast on public airwaves. Some members of the general public use video tape recorders sold by petitioners to

record some of these broadcasts, as well as a large number of other broadcasts. Respondents sued petitioners for copyright

infringement, alleging that because consumers used petitioners' recorders to record respondents' copyrighted works, petitioners

were liable for the copyright infringement allegedly committed by those consumers in violation of the Copyright Act.  The district

court held in favor of petitioners. The appellate court reversed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the sale of petitioners' copying equipment to the general public violative of the rights conferred upon respondents

by the Copyright Act?

RULING:

No. Copyright protection has never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all possible uses of his work. Rather, it

grants the copyright holder exclusive rights to use and to authorize the use of his work in five qualified ways, including

reproduction of the copyrighted work in copies pursuant to 17 U.S.C.S. § 106. All reproductions of the work, however, are not

within the exclusive domain of the copyright owner; some are in the public domain. Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted

work for a fair use.

The U.S. Supreme Court held that the sale of home video tape recorders to the general public did not constitute contributory

infringement of copyrights on television programs because there was a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of

copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would not object to having their broadcasts time-

shifted by private viewers, and the plaintiff copyright holders did not demonstrate that time-shifting would cause any likelihood

of non-minimal harm to the potential market for, or the value of, their copyrighted works.

You might also like