A federal appeals court just gave software developers, and users, an early holiday present, holding that software updates aren't necessarily "derivative," for purposes of copyright law, just because they are designed to interoperate the software they update.
This sounds kind of obscure, so let's cut through the legalese. Lots of developers build software designed to interoperate with preexisting works. This kind of interoperability is crucial to innovation, particularly in a world where a small number of companies control so many essential tools and platforms. If users want to be able to repair, improve, and secure their devices, they must be able to rely on third parties to help. Trouble is, Big Tech companies want to be able to control (and charge for) every possible use of the devices and software they "sell" you - and they won't hesitate to use the law to enforce that control.
Courts shouldn't assist, but unfortunately a federal district court did just that in the latest iteration of Oracle v. Rimini. Rimini provides support to improve the use and security of Oracle products, so customers don't have to depend entirely on Oracle itself . Oracle doesn't want this kind of competition, so it sued Rimini for copyright infringement, arguing that a software update Rimini developed was a "derivative work" because it was intended to interoperate with Oracle's software, even though the update didn't use any of Oracle's copyrightable code. Derivative works are typically things like a movie based on a novel, or a translation of that novel. Here, the only "derivative" aspect was that Rimini's code was designed to interact with Oracle's code.
Unfortunately, the district court initially sided with Oracle, setting a dangerous precedent. If a work is derivative, it may infringe the copyright in the preexisting work from which it, well, derives. For decades, software developers have relied, correctly, on the settled view that a work is not derivative under copyright law unless it is substantially similar to a preexisting work in both ideas and expression. Thanks to that rule, software developers can build innovative new tools that interact with preexisting works, including tools that improve privacy and security, without fear that the companies that hold rights in those preexisting works would have an automatic copyright claim to those innovations.
Rimini appealed to the Ninth Circuit, on multiple grounds. EFF, along with a diverse group of stakeholders representing consumers, small businesses, software developers, security researchers, and the independent repair community, filed an amicus brief in support explaining that the district court ruling on interoperability was not just bad policy, but also bad law.
The Ninth Circuit agreed:
In effect, the district court adopted an "interoperability" test for derivative works -- if a product can only interoperate with a preexisting copyrighted work, then it must be derivative. But neither the text of the Copyright Act nor our precedent supports this interoperability test for derivative works.
The court goes on to give a primer on the legal definition of derivative work, but the key point is this: a work is only derivative if it "substantially incorporates the other work."
Copyright already reaches far too broadly, giving rightsholders extraordinary power over how we use everything from music to phones to televisions. This holiday season, we're raising a glass to the judges who sensibly reined that power in.