JuralogiumThe Architecture of Law
INTER-CIRCUIT FRACTURES & CARTOGRAPHIC TOPOLOGY

Circuit Splits & Global Jurisdictions

How geographical boundaries fracture digital systems. Explore the global jurisprudential atlas, compare circuit rules on the Server Test and fair use, and simulate inter-circuit liability.

◈ Initializing Global Jurisprudential Cartographic Engine…
GEOGRAPHICAL JURISDICTION & LIABILITY SIMULATOR

Circuit Split Jurisdiction Matrix

Select a contested digital doctrine and compare real-time liability thresholds across differing U.S. Federal Appellate Circuits.

Contested Jurisprudential Question:

Does framing or embedding a third-party copyrighted image stored on an external server violate the copyright owner's public display right?

Governing Regional Precedent:

Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)

Regional Risk Rating:0% EXPOSURE
Regional Legal Holding & Operational Rule:

The 'Server Test': Infringement of the public display right requires that the copyrighted file physically reside on the defendant's server. Providing HTML embed links or iframes is not a display.

Comprehensive Circuit Split Compendium

CopyrightSCOTUS: Pending / Ripe for Review

The Server Test for Public Display (9th Cir. vs 2nd Cir.)

17 U.S.C. § 106(5) (Public Display Right)
9th CircuitMajority Rule

The Server Test holds that a website owner does not display a copy of an image by embedding or linking to it from another website, unless the image is actually stored on the defendant's own web server.

Philosophy: Technological physicalism: infringement requires physical possession of digital bits on local server hardware.
Anchor: Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007)
2nd Circuit / S.D.N.Y.Minority / Fracture

Rejects the Server Test, holding that embedding an image into a webpage directly infringes the public display right if the webpage causes the image to be shown to the user, regardless of which server hosts the file.

Philosophy: Functional user perception: the display right protects what the viewer perceives, not the invisible network plumbing.
Anchor: Goldman v. Breitbart News Network, 302 F. Supp. 3d 585 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
Systemic Architectural Implication: Determines whether modern web framing, headless API embeds, social media aggregators, and RAG retrieval pipelines can be sued for copyright infringement simply for rendering external content.
CopyrightSCOTUS: Emerging

Intermediate Ingestion vs Market Substitution Fair Use

17 U.S.C. § 107(1) & § 107(4)
2nd Circuit (Authors Guild Lineage)Majority Rule

Mass computational intermediate copying of full works is transformative fair use if the public output consists of metadata, search indexing, or non-substituting snippets.

Philosophy: Pragmatic computational utility: copyright should not block non-expressive machine reading and analytical data extraction.
Anchor: Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 804 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2015)
9th Circuit & Post-Warhol InterpretersMinority / Fracture

If the ultimate commercial deployment of the technology serves to generate outputs that compete in the same expressive marketplace, intermediate copying defenses cannot insulate the pipeline.

Philosophy: Derivative market preservation: protecting creators against commercial dilution overrides computational convenience.
Anchor: Warhol v. Goldsmith (SCOTUS 2023)
Systemic Architectural Implication: The central legal battleground for all AI foundation models: whether training-time vector indexing is protected by Authors Guild or burdened by Warhol's market substitution doctrine.
PatentsSCOTUS: Certiorari Denied

Patent Subject Matter Eligibility for Software Algorithms

35 U.S.C. § 101
Federal Circuit (Narrow Eligibility Panels)Majority Rule

Information collection, analysis, and display are inherently abstract ideas; software claims that do not invent new computer hardware fail § 101.

Philosophy: Strict anti-monopoly: prevents patenting mathematical algorithms and data processing methods.
Anchor: Electric Power Group v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Federal Circuit (Technical Improvement Panels)Minority / Fracture

Software claims that improve specific computer operations (such as a self-referential table structure or automated rule sets) are patent-eligible at Step 2A without needing hardware changes.

Philosophy: Technological parity: software architecture improvements are legitimate engineering innovations entitled to patent incentives.
Anchor: Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Systemic Architectural Implication: Creates massive unpredictability for AI patents, rendering machine learning architecture patentability contingent on specific panel assignments at the Federal Circuit.