Wilder v. Hoiland

Background

Esther Wilder and Sarah Hoiland filed cross-motions for summary judgment in a copyright-infringement case. In an earlier Opinion and Order, the court granted summary judgment to Hoiland based on her fair-use defense. The court also found genuine issues of material fact—disputed facts that could affect the outcome—about whether Wilder owned the copyright, preventing summary judgment for Wilder on her infringement claim. Judgment was entered on February 2, 2024.

Wilder then moved under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to alter or amend the judgment. Hoiland separately moved for attorneys’ fees and costs under the Copyright Act. After Wilder filed her motion, Hoiland sought to withdraw the fee motion, but the court addressed and denied it.

Wilder’s Rule 59(e) Motion

The court explained that Rule 59(e) motions are subject to strict standards. They generally require an intervening change in controlling law, newly available evidence, a clear error, or the need to prevent serious unfairness. They cannot be used to relitigate issues already decided or raise arguments that could have been made before judgment.

Wilder conceded that she was not relying on a change in law or newly discovered evidence. She argued instead that the court clearly erred and caused serious unfairness by finding that Hoiland’s use of the “Unit 7H Text” was fair. Wilder contended that Hoiland’s use was not transformative and that the written slides, considered without the oral presentation, should control the analysis.

The court rejected those arguments. It explained that whether a use is transformative is only one part of the fair-use analysis and is not required in every fair-use case. The court also relied on Hoiland’s noncommercial educational purpose, the nonfictional nature of the work, and the absence of persuasive evidence of likely market harm. The court stated that it had considered the written slides and that they had to be evaluated as a whole, in context, rather than by looking only at the five slides that incorporated Wilder’s text.

The court also rejected Wilder’s brief assertion that the judgment created serious unfairness. It concluded that Wilder had not shown clear error or the type of rare injustice that warrants reconsideration. The court therefore denied Wilder’s request to reconsider the grant of summary judgment to Hoiland. Because it declined to reconsider the fair-use ruling, the court did not address Wilder’s request for summary judgment on copyright ownership and infringement.

Hoiland’s Fee Motion

Under section 505 of the Copyright Act, a court has discretion to award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to a prevailing party. The court considered factors including whether the losing party’s position was frivolous or objectively unreasonable, the party’s motivation, and whether compensation or deterrence supported an award.

Hoiland argued that Wilder’s copyright claim was objectively unreasonable, improperly motivated, and deserving of a fee award for compensation and deterrence. The court disagreed. It found that this case did not involve the bad faith, objective unreasonableness, or other circumstances present in cases where courts had awarded fees to defendants.

Disposition

Wilder’s motion under Rule 59(e) to alter or amend the judgment was DENIED. Hoiland’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs was also DENIED. The court directed the Clerk to terminate the motions and close the case.