Quarterly Journal Volume 52, Issue 1
In This Section
The Quarterly Journal is dedicated to presenting materials relating to intellectual property matters and is published four times per year. Editorial Board members (all of whom are lawyers) are selected based upon demonstrated interest and experience, and student staff members are selected from the students of the GWU Law School.
![](https://www.aipla.org/images/default-source/125th-anniversary/copyright71d6fe50-7a97-46b6-9587-a824908a1d97.png?sfvrsn=2ab2acd9_1)
Jared S. Sunshine
Plagiarism has both been hailed as humble homage and denounced as arrant piracy, often in the same breath, dating from its earliest naming by the archetypal victim of plagiarism, the noted epigrammatist Martial. Layered on top of this ambivalence are the strictures of copyright, which both mirror and contrast with plagiarism in crucial ways—and the question of what it means to make “fair use” of a precursor, by transforming it into something new, or otherwise. But plagiarism is also orthogonal to antitrust law, in that a copycat sins most grievously in competing with the author by unfair means, again raising questions of how similar the original and the copy are. Somewhere in interstices of all these overlapping spheres, however, lurks the unifying principle of posterity, as intimated in the recent Supreme Court case of Andy Warhol and his iconic portrait of Prince. Machiavelli said, after all, that to understand the most fundamental things, they must be seen from on high, as a prince.
![QJ49-1-Heiden](https://www.aipla.org/images/default-source/news-publications/qj49-1-heiden.png?sfvrsn=39034ea7_0)
Kaitlyn Iwanowski
To bring a trade secret misappropriation claim in the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), complainants must prove that the alleged misappropriation has the tendency or effect to substantially injure a domestic industry. The ITC’s “substantial injury” requirement for trade secret claims is burdensome to prove and expensive to litigate. Congress removed this requirement for statutory intellectual property in 1988. Trade secrets, however, were not statutory in 1988 and, therefore, still to this day have the “substantial injury” requirement. Because trade secret law is now statutory due to the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, Congress should amend Section 337 to give trade secrets its own provision and, therefore, remove the difficult-to-prove and expensive-to-litigate “substantial injury” requirement.
![QJ49-2-Harmon](https://www.aipla.org/images/default-source/news-publications/qj49-2-harmon.png?sfvrsn=ca8571fb_0)
Tess Toland
This Note explores how the United States’ implementation of a subjective fair use defense to copyright infringement has led to disparity between courts in their evaluation of copyright infringement suits, confusion about the standards implemented and subjective factors evaluated when a fair use defense is invoked, and inequity in outcomes for parties with unequal bargaining power. This Note argues that the fair use defense’s four subjective factors should be reevaluated and replaced with a series of concrete, objective standards modeled after the European Union’s Information Society Directive. Section II.A examines the origins of fair use as a defense to copyright infringement. Section II.B lays out the current U.S. law on invoking the fair use defense. Section II.C argues that the fair use defense is too open-ended and too context-sensitive as it stands in the United States today, looks specifically at the first fair use factor set forth by Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, and explains why it is the most subjective and therefore, the most problematic. Section II.D looks to European Union copyright law for a solution to the problems set forth in the former sections. Finally, Part III proposes specific amendments to Section 107 of the Copyright Act, eliminating the subjectivity of the fair use defense, reshaping fair use to specifically target its original purpose, and tailoring the new Section 107 towards equally protecting both established artists and unestablished artists, who lack a voice and significant bargaining power in the art world.
![QJ-49-3-Leijon](https://www.aipla.org/images/default-source/news-publications/qj-49-3-leijon.png?sfvrsn=5c050d77_0)
Morris Young
Upcoming Events
-
AIPLA 2024 Annual Meeting
October 24 to 26, 2024
Join us as we bring IP professionals together to learn and connect. More information coming soon! The 2024 Annual meeting will take place at the Gaylord National Harbor Resort. Leadership Meetings on Wednesday, October 23. Programming scheduled October 24-26. -
2024 Annual Meeting
October 24 to 26, 2024
Join us as we bring IP professionals together to learn and connect. More information coming soon! The 2024 Annual meeting will take place at the Gaylord National Harbor Resort. Leadership Meetings on Wednesday, October 23. Programming scheduled October 24-26. -
2025 Leadership Forum
January 29 to 30, 2025
AIPLA Leadership Forum – Elevate Yourself, Inspire the Future. This invitation-only two-day program will address building strong leadership skills for all levels of experience. More details coming soon. -
2025 AIPLA Spring Meeting
May 13 to 15, 2025
The 2025 Spring Meeting Planning Committee is now accepting topic submissions through their Call For Topics form. Registration opens February 2025. More details coming soon!