First Sale Imports

Arts + Copyright + International + Litigation + Media
April 10, 2013
Read this in 2 minutes

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., resolved the collision of three sections of the Copyright Act: 17 U.S.C. §§106(3) (exclusive rights); 109(a) (first sale exception); and 602(a)(1) (importation restriction).

Supap Kirtsaeng, a citizen of Thailand, came to the United States in the late 90s to study at Cornell. When he completed his studies at Cornell he went on to earn a Ph.D. in mathematics at USC. He eventually returned to Thailand to teach, which was required by a scholarship he received from the Thai government. While in the United States, Kirtsaeng had his friends and family in Thailand buy copies of foreign edition English language textbooks at low prices and mail them to him in the United States where he sold them for profit. In 2008, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., brought a lawsuit against Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement.

The parties’ arguments revolved around the meaning of the phrase “lawfully made under this title” as it appears in the §109(a) codification of the aged common law first sale doctrine. Wiley argued for a geographical interpretation, confining the first sale exception to works made in the United States. Of course, that reading squarely conflicts with the geographic equalization of the copyright regime by excision of the manufacturing clause in the 80s. The Court wrote that Wiley’s reading “bristles with linguistic difficulties” and instead held that the operative phrase merely means “in accordance with” or “in compliance with” the Copyright Act. Common sense prevails in language and policy, though at the expense of foreign price discrimination.

It remains to be seen how the market will absorb this ruling, and in particular whether domestic textbook pricing will be sanitized.

The American Library Association chimed in as an amicus to point out that our library collections contain at least 200 million books published abroad, the circulation of which would come into question should Wiley’s reading of §109(a) take hold. Other practical problems were paraded.

Of note, the Lord Coke quote cited by the Court in support of its first sale interpretation is worth repeating here.

[If] a man be possessed of . . . a horse, or of any other chattell . . . and give or sell his whole interest . . . therein upon condition that the Donee or Vendee shall not alien[ate] the same, the [condition] is voi[d], be­ cause his whole interest . . . is out of him, so as he hath no possibilit[y] of a Reverter, and it is against Trade and Traffi[c], and bargaining and contracting betwee[n] man and man: and it is within the reason of our Author that it should ouster him of all power given to him.

A patch of legalese c. 1628 that’s easy to appreciate.

Update: January 18, 2016

Petitioner, Supap Kirtsaeng, seeks attorney fees under 17 U.S.C. §505, which provides that a “court may . . . award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party”, and the standard for awarding such fees is being reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The petitioner claims the appellate circuits are split on the interpretation of §505, namely that a party who would prevail in one court of appeals would lose in another only because the law applied by each differs.

Did you find value in this piece? Tweet or Like it so others can, too.
Media + Arts + Tech


I am native to media, arts and tech – as a former touring musician, as one who can and does code, and as a maker fluent in design and multimedia content development (audio, video, photo, graphic, analog, textual). This overlap of niche and background allows me to efficiently and peerlessly integrate legal and creative for clients working in expressive spaces.


They are called organizations for good reason. Getting and staying documented, well-papered, compliant, and aligned with pragmatic protocols is prime among best practices. General counsel and correct governance are as important to closely-held companies as they are to those seeking or deploying external funding. There are few investments more sound than a solid foundation.


Optimizing a deal requires focussed and technical drafting. What multiple collaborators have in mind when they begin does not automatically manifest when a concept is translated into the physical world. Get ahead of junctures, pivots and transitions. Reflecting on the page what is intended at heart is the ultimate efficiency.


There are few disciplines as relevant and fluid as copyright. The media space has enjoyed rapid development over recent decades. Law is not always so quick to follow. Navigating ownership of content is a primary concern for creative enterprises.


Impact and impression are salable and demand attention, from protecting to capitalizing. Define your brand, put on a search, definitively document, and enforce with intent – or share, collaborate and cross-pollinate.

Trade Secrets

Assets come in variegated forms – not always capitally quantifiable or neatly captured by intellectual property regimes. But proprietary information can be of principal, or even singular value. Safeguard, manage and leverage such resources prudently and productively.


One of the most important tools in the kit of creative profit is the flexibility and extensibility that adept licensing affords. Do it well – do it right.


Interfacing with public agencies is a vastly different experience than cutting deals in the private sector. Conventions, ethics, regulations, policy, and sinuous procedure need not block your path forward. Additionally, the First Amendment was written for you – stand on it.


There will almost certainly come a time when dispute crops up and grows entrenched, or rights and obligations are transgressed or ignored. Less talk, more action – bring deft advocacy and mastery of process into play.


Creation is nothing if uninspired. Your vocation is to deploy vision and bridge the gap between what is known and unknown, what is possible and impossible. Apply the very same foresight to your company and your career. Chance favors the prepared mind.