Meolatate v. Ohio State Univ.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that LEXIS/NEXIS, by selling copies of copyrighted articles through its NEXIS database, had exercised the exclusive right of distribution recognized by Section 106(3)
• concluding that LEXIS/NEXIS had exercised its exclusive right, under the Copyright Act, to distribute copies of copyrighted works by selling copies of the copyrighted work on its online database
• noting that § 201(c) “recognizes two distinct copyrighted works:” the “separate contribution” and “the collective work”
• recognizing Congress’s intent to reform “the author/publisher balance” by providing an “inalienable authorial right to revoke a copyright transfer” through Section 203
• articles republished in electronic databases are not part of or revisions of periodicals and cannot be relicensed by periodical publishers without authors’ consent
• “ ‘the transfer of a work between media’ does not ‘alte[r] the character of that work for copyright purposes’ ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).