Articles

The End of Special Treatment for Exotic Imports Under Copyright Law?

On March 19, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court released its anxiously-awaited decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. deciding one of the most important copyright cases in years. In its decision, the Court held that the so-called "first-sale doctrine" applies to copies of copyrighted works manufactured outside the United States. Though the result is tempered by other limitations on importation based in trademark and patent law, this decision could still have significant impact on U.S. commerce. As discussed below, it effects not just trade in the obvious things like books, videos and music, but also the market for electronic devices, cars, and, in fact, virtually any product.

Why You’re Allowed To Resell Copyrighted Works

The John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is a prominent publisher of math, science and engineering textbooks. These texts sell for rather high prices in the United States, which students in many poorer countries could not afford. Wiley, therefore, also publishes almost identical editions of the textbooks outside the U.S., which it prices far more cheaply to students in other countries. The copyright notices in the books prominently state that the books may not be exported from their target region without permission of the publisher. Mr. Supap Kirtsaeng was a Thai student who came to the U.S. to get his undergraduate and doctoral degrees in mathematics. While he was here, he had his family in Thailand purchase inexpensive copies of textbooks which they would ship to him so that he could sell them at a profit here. Wiley sued Kitrsaeng for violating its exclusive rights as the owner of the copyrights in the textbooks.

The owner of the copyright in a work is endowed with a variety of exclusive rights to control how the work is exploited, set forth in the Copyright Act. Central to these rights is the right, specified in Section 106(3) "to distribute copies . . . of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership." That is, only the owner of the copyright has the right to sell or give away copies of the work. If this were all the Copyright Act had to say about the matter, then it would be illegal (a violation of the copyright owner's rights) for you to sell or give away a book that you had bought after you were done reading it. You might not even be able to loan it to a friend without the publisher's permission. All these acts would violate the copyright owner's exclusive right to control distribution.

What makes these acts legal is that the copyright owner's exclusive distribution right is limited by the "first-sale doctrine" set forth in section 109(a), which says: “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 (3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord." That is, if you own a copy of the copyrighted work "lawfully made under this title" you are allowed to sell or give away that copy without the permission of the copyright owner. The copyright owner's first sale of the copy (to you or someone else) is said to have "exhausted" its right to control distribution of that particular copy.

The issue in Kitrsaeng was a longstanding disagreement among the circuit courts of appeal over what the phrase "lawfully made under this tittle" means. Historically, almost everyone assumed that it meant a legal, authorized copy as opposed to, say, a pirated copy. Some circuits believed, however, that this phrase had a so-called geographical interpretation, that it referred to copies made in the United States, since that is where the Copyright Act (the "title") applies. Under this reasoning, Wiley argued (and the Second Circuit agreed) that copies made abroad could not be re-distributed without its permission because the first-sale doctrine did not apply to such copies --- even though they were authorized copies, they were not "lawfully made under this title."

In its decision, the Supreme Court flatly rejected the geographical interpretation of the first-sale doctrine in copyright and said that the former view was the correct one.

Consequences of the Decision

The implications of this view of the law go far beyond the obvious (and significant) secondary market in books, CDs, DVDs and other items that come to mind when you hear the term "copyrighted work." For example, nearly every electronic device includes a microprocessor that is controlled by "embedded software." That software, like any other computer program, is subject to copyright. If the Supreme Court had sided with Wiley and the Second Circuit, the manufacturers of such devices (which include everything from MP3 players to refrigerators to automobiles) would be able to restrict your ability to re-sell or even to donate the devices when you were done with them, if they were manufactured abroad. Indeed, almost every article of commerce includes some copyrighted material. (Consider, for example, the instructions and descriptive text on the back of a bottle of shampoo, the design of the pattern printed on the fabric of a shirt, or the sculptural design of a lamp base.) Simply by moving manufacturing off-shore, manufacturers would be able to limit your ability to re-sell or otherwise distribute nearly anything.


The Supreme Court has, however, now put the matter to rest and stated unequivocally that the phrase "lawfully made under this title" has its more natural, historically understood meaning and not a geographical one. eBay sellers, eBay itself, thrift stores, libraries and pretty much every consumer can breathe a sigh of relief. Copyright holders, however, must now consider the difficulty of dividing and price-targeting international markets. From a consumer and reseller perspective, the case merely equalizes treatment of copyrighted products no matter where produced.

Manufacturers, though, may take solace (and refuge) however in other areas of law. While the first-sale doctrine is contained in the copyright statute itself, in other areas of law -- trademark and patent in particular – the law governing reselling is purely “judge-made” law. The circuit courts have given manufacturers extensive rights to ban re-importation based on trademark and patent rights and the Supreme Court has not addressed those restrictions. Indeed, in the weeks after it issued its decision in Kitrsaeng, the Supreme Court declined to take a re-importation case based in patent law, letting the lower court’s restriction on re-importation stand. The ability to import goods subject to patent and trademark law must therefore be addressed separately from the copyright considerations. Gray market goods thus remain gray.

Related Practices


Related Attorneys

Find an Attorney

Each of the firm's offices include partners, associates and a professional staff dedicated to meeting the challenge of providing the firm's clients with extraordinary service.