22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T43f,MEMORANDUM William J. Lathan appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Worth v. Selchow & Righter Co., 827 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment because the Copyright Act’s fair use defense bars Lathan’s action. 17 U.S.C. § 107 (2006); see also Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1163 (9th Cir.2007) (“The [fair use] defense encourages and allows the development of new ideas that build on earlier ones, thus providing a necessary counterbalance to the copyright law’s goal of protecting creators’ work product.”); id. at 1163-68 (explaining four-factor test for fair use analysis). Because the district court properly made a finding of fair use, we need not review the district court’s finding that the merger doctrine also bars Lathan’s action. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T471,

MEMORANDUM

William J. Lathan appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his copyright infringement action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Worth v. Selchow & Righter Co., 827 F.2d 569, 571 (9th Cir.1987). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because the Copyright Act’s fair use defense bars Lathan’s action. 17 U.S.C. § 107 (2006); see also Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146, 1163 (9th Cir.2007) (“The [fair use] defense encourages and allows the development of new ideas that build on earlier ones, thus providing a necessary counterbalance to the copyright law’s goal of protecting creators’ work product.”); id. at 1163-68 (explaining four-factor test for fair use analysis).

Because the district court properly made a finding of fair use, we need not review the district court’s finding that the merger doctrine also bars Lathan’s action.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.