This case has been watched by universities around the country to see how a federal court would interpret fair use in regard to electronic copies and for educational use. It has also spurred dialogue on problems with the current system for generating, publishing, and disseminating academic works.
In April 2008, three academic publishers filed suit against four officers of GSU for “pervasive, flagrant and ongoing unauthorized distribution of copyrighted materials” through the library’s e-reserve system.
In 2009, GSU revised its policies for electronic resources to address some of the publishers’ complaints, and the court ruled only instances occurring after that date would be considered.
On May 11, 2012, Judge Evans found copyright violations in only 5 of 99 excerpts and found the university’s policy had been a good faith interpretation of the fair use provision in copyright law. She also set out specific guidelines to be used in evaluating fair use of copyrighted material.
The judge asked the publishers to submit a proposed injunction (filed May 31st) and gave GSU 15 days to respond. On August 10, 2012, she rejected the severe injunction proposed by the publishers for an injunction limited to keeping the copyright policy consistent with the court's ruling and training faculty and staff in its application. The court also ordered publishers to pay GSU's attorney fees.
The District Court of Northern Georgia's ruling was appealed by the Oxford University Press to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
On Friday, October 17, 2014 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in remanded the District Court of Northern Georgia's decision, and found in favor of the publisher appellants.
Following the Eleventh Circuit ruling, the Appellant publishers petitioned for a rehearing en banc, and the Appellee University petitioned for a panel rehearing. Both petitions were denied.
On February 24, 2015 the Plaintiffs filed a motion with the District Court to re-open the record, and on April 23, 2015, District Court Judge Evans dismissed the motion to reopen the record and issued an order about briefing the court on what a new analysis of fair use for the original excerpts considered in the trial should look like.