Page:ASTM v. PRO (D.D.C. 2022).pdf/234

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Case 1:13-cv-01215-TSC Document 239-1 Filed 03/31/22 Page 187 of 187

burden of demonstrating its affirmative fair use defense, see Campbell, 510 U.S. at 590, and here, it has not shown that this standard has been incorporated by reference into law.

    • First Factor: There is no indication that Defendant stands to profit from republishing this standard, but Defendant’s stated purpose—to inform the public about the law and facilitate public debate—is not significantly furthered by publishing this standard rather than one that has been incorporated by reference into law. See ASTM, 896 F.3d at 449. Further, because the standard has not been incorporated by reference into law, Defendant’s use is less transformative. See ASTM, 896 F.3d at 450.
    • Second Factor: Standards incorporated by reference into law “are, at best, at the outer edge of “copyright’s protective purposes.” ASTM, 896 F.3d at 451. Standards not incorporated into law, though factual works, fall more squarely within the realm of copyright protection. Here, Defendant has not shown that this standard has been incorporated into law and so this factor also counsels against Defendant’s fair use.
    • Third Factor: The Supreme Court has characterized the relevant inquiry as whether “‘the amount and substantiality of the portion used[’] … are reasonable in relation to the purpose of the copying.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 586–87 (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 107(3)). Incorporating one standard by reference does not justify posting provisions of a different version that has not been incorporated into law. See ASTM, 896 F.3d at 452. Instead, Defendant’s purpose could be achieved with a paraphrase or summary.
    • Fourth Factor: Defendant’s reproductions have not had a “substantially adverse impact on the potential market for the originals,” nor have Plaintiffs shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a meaningful likelihood of future harm.” Memo Op. at 30–36 (internal quotation and citation marks omitted).
    • Conclusion: Under the presented facts, which are undisputed, Defendant may not fairly copy and republish this standard.

Date: March 31, 2022

Tanya S. Chutkan

TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge

Page 187 of 187