Introduction

The judgment in Esther Wilder v. Sarah Hoiland, issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 12, 2025, addresses a significant issue in academic copyright law. In this case, Esther Wilder, a faculty member at Lehman College of The City University of New York (CUNY), alleged that Sarah Hoiland, a faculty member at CUNY's Hostos Community College, infringed her copyright during a presentation. The dispute centers on whether using parts of Wilder’s copyrighted text, known as Unit 7H, in a transformative academic presentation falls under the protection of the fair use doctrine.

The proceedings involved critical cross-motions for summary judgment: Wilder contended that the summary judgment in favor of Hoiland (on the basis of her fair use affirmative defense) was erroneous, while Hoiland argued against awarding attorney’s fees meant to deter frivolous litigation. The parties' backgrounds, procedural histories, and the academic context of the copyright dispute play central roles in the legal analysis.

Summary of the Judgment

In a summary order that does not carry precedential effect, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s decisions. The court upheld the summary judgment in favor of Hoiland on the fair use defense, concluding that her use of Unit 7H was sufficiently transformative and non-commercial. Additionally, the District Court’s denial of Wilder's Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment and the denial of Hoiland's motion for attorney’s fees were affirmed. The Court noted that while Hoiland’s use appropriated a significant portion of the copyrighted text, the transformative nature of her presentation, its academic context, and the evaluation of all four fair use factors collectively supported the finding of fair use.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several leading cases to support its analysis:

• Hachette Book Grp., Inc. v. Internet Archive – The case establishes that summary judgment should be reviewed without deference when the parties have filed cross-motions, especially when one motion is granted and the other denied.
• Andy Warhol Found. for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith – Cited for the proposition that the fair use inquiry may resolve mixed questions of law and fact through summary judgment if material facts are undisputed.
• CAMPBELL v. ACUFF-ROSE MUSIC, INC. – Provides the definition and evaluative criteria for transformativeness, a key sub-factor under the first fair use factor.
• Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enterprises – Used to discuss the distinction between commercial and non-commercial uses.
• NXIVM CORP. v. ROSS INSTITUTE – The case is influential in determining the appropriate denominator for assessing the amount and substantiality of the material used in copyright infringement cases.
• FOGERTY v. FANTASY, INC. & Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. – Referenced regarding the standard for awarding attorney’s fees.

These precedents were instrumental in shaping the court's interpretation of the fair use statutory factors and in reinforcing the principle that for academic works, the context of use—the degree of transformation and the impact on the market—must be carefully balanced.

Legal Reasoning

The court systematically examined the four statutory factors set forth in Section 107 of the Copyright Act:

• Purpose and Character of the Use: Central to the analysis was determining whether Hoiland’s use was transformative. The court concluded that because Hoiland’s presentation significantly differed in purpose from Wilder’s original course material, it was transformative. Moreover, the non-commercial, educational nature of the use reinforced this conclusion.
• Nature of the Copyrighted Work: The court acknowledged that Wilder’s Unit 7H was largely factual and informational. This characteristic gave greater leeway in the fair use context as opposed to highly creative or expressive works.
• Amount and Substantiality: Although Hoiland used approximately two-thirds of Unit 7H, the court indicated that this factor, while favoring Wilder to some extent, did not outweigh the transformation and non-commercial character of the use.
• Market Effect: The consideration here was whether Hoiland’s use could substitute for Wilder’s original work in the market. Given that the presentation did not create a competing market and was a one-time educational exposition, this factor favored a finding of fair use.

Additionally, the court’s scrutiny extended to procedural challenges, such as Wilder’s Rule 59(e) motion and the cross-appeal regarding attorney’s fees. In each instance, the court found that the district court’s decisions were supported by careful legal reasoning and consistent application of established precedent.

Impact

This judgment is poised to have several considerable implications:

• It reinforces the importance of assessing the transformative nature and educational context in academic disputes over copyrighted material.
• The decision solidifies a balanced approach to the fair use doctrine, particularly in situations where the amount of material used is substantial but its purpose diverges significantly from the original.
• By rejecting attempts to narrow the scope of the copyrighted material (i.e., measuring the use against a subunit rather than the entire course curriculum), the court dissuades tactical manipulations in copyright claims.
• It provides clarity on the factors and evidentiary standards required to both successfully claim fair use and effectively challenge such claims in future litigations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts and terminologies from the judgment merit clarification:

• Transformative Use: This refers to whether a new work adds new expression, meaning, or message to the original, rather than merely copying it. In this case, the court found Hoiland’s presentation transformative because it served a different educational and commentary purpose.
• Fair Use Factors: The four statutory factors (purpose, nature, amount, and market effect) must be weighed together rather than in isolation. Each factor contributes to the overall analysis of whether a use is fair.
• Summary Judgment: Summary judgment is granted when there is no genuine dispute over material facts. In this case, the court held that the undisputed facts allowed for a resolution on the fair use question without proceeding to a full trial.
• Denominator for Fair Use: The term “denominator” refers to the body of work against which the amount of material used is measured. The court criticized an overly narrow approach that would allow plaintiffs to register only minimal portions of a larger cohesive work.

Conclusion

The judgment in Wilder v. Hoiland establishes a pivotal precedent in the context of academic copyright disputes. By affirming the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Hoiland on the fair use defense, the appellate court underscored the importance of the transformative nature of a work and its non-commercial, educational use. The detailed analysis of the four statutory fair use factors, supported by relevant precedents, provides clarity for future legal disputes in the academic realm.

Furthermore, the court’s handling of procedural challenges — including motions to strike references from briefs and the evaluation of attorney’s fees — illustrates a careful balancing act between protecting intellectual property rights and fostering academic freedom. Legal professionals and academic institutions alike should take note of the reasoning in this decision, as it offers guidance on the application of fair use in educational settings and discourages overly narrow approaches that could otherwise distort the fair use analysis.