150 F. Supp. 2d 613 (2001)
- Relying on the language of the contracts and basic principles of contract interpretation, the court found that the right to "print, publish and sell the works in book form" did not include the right to publish the works in a digital format.
- The court found that the phrase itself distinguished between the pure content -- i.e. "the work" -- and the format of display -- "in book form."
- Also, separate grant language was used to convey the rights to publish book club editions, reprint editions, abridged forms, and editions in Braille.
- This language would not have been necessary if the phrase "in book form" encompassed all types of books.
- Additionally, each of the authors specifically reserved certain rights for themselves by striking out phrases, sentences, and paragraphs of the publisher's form contract.
- This evidenced an intent not to grant the publisher the broadest rights in their works.
- Since the publishing company could not establish a prima facie case of copyright infringement, it was not likely to succeed on the merits and could not meet the test for obtaining a preliminary injunction.
The publisher's motion for preliminary injunction was denied.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.