Remember the enterprising Thai-born, U.S. college student who made a bundle and helped pay for his tuition by selling textbooks that his friends and family had bought abroad and shipped to him? Today, the case of Supap Kirtsaeng has resulted in a 6-3 landmark Supreme Court ruling. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons holds that legally acquired copyrighted works can be resold by their owners, and it does apply to works made overseas. So, for instance, textbooks that are produced and sold abroad can be re-sold online. The case involves Section 109 of U.S. Copyright Act, 0r “first sale doctrine,” which limits the distribution rights of a copyright owner and allows the owner of a lawfully-made copy of a copyrighted work to sell or loan the copy without permission from the copyright holder.

For more details, see reports from the Huffington Post, Publishers Weekly and the patent law blog Patently O.

An update on recent posting about the Georgia State eReserve case. Either the Dept. of Justice has bigger fish to fry or actually read the case very closely. Another check mark in the positive column for academic libraries.

It’s not news that we haven’t heard the last of the Georgia State eReserves case, but now it seems the U.S. Dept. of Justice might be getting involved – and not on the fair use side. Get the latest scoop.

The recent death of Aaron Swartz has highlighted not only his work and activism but the crucial issues at hand related to digital rights, copyright and open access. The video accompanying this article, his keynote speech at last May’s F2C:Freedom to Connect 2012 event in Washington, D.C., is engaging and informative.

Today’s claim to fame is not only the day you give your resolutions a second thought, but it is also Public Domain Day. This year, the works of Bruno Schulz, Stefan Zweig, Léon Daude, Violet Hunt, et al, shed the control of whoever their copyright owners might have been, step into the public domain, and make themselves available for us to use as we like. Celebrate by getting creative and building upon the creativity of others!

In the Fall of 2011, a judge threw out the case against UCLA for streaming video for educational purposes. Cut to Fall of 2012: ditto. The same judge, who had allowed the educational media trade group to amend its complaint that UCLA was violating copyright law, dismissed the sequel, too. Both ambiguity (fair use’s milieu) in the law and the subsequent dismissals lead to a triumphant feeling for UCLA, but a feeling is still not something that can be codified. A reposting here of the Center for Social Media’s advice on the subject of teaching with steaming video might help.

This one in the case against the digital library HathiTrust. Here’s the Chronicle‘s news brief, and then for background, an informative treatment by a NY Law School professor and the Chronicle’s full article on the case from last year.

Given the recent news that the plaintiffs in the Georgia State e-reserves case will appeal the May 2012 decision favoring the university, we thought it would be a good excuse to revisit the core issues. This Chronicle of Higher Ed article from last year is one good way to do so.

This is a fraught issue – remember the UCLA case? – and these are common questions, addressed efficiently by our friends at the Center for Social Media.

Here’s a satisfying and clear summary of the most recent (and final?) goings-on with the Georgia State fair use case from Duke U’s Kevin Smith.