Gartner's Overreach: When Copyright Claims Chill Professional Discourse

As a retired intellectual property lawyer who has spent decades navigating the complex waters of copyright law, I was struck by a recent incident involving Gartner and industry analyst Zeus Kerravala of ZK Research . The episode raises important questions about Fair Use and the balance between intellectual property rights and professional discourse.

The Initial Analysis

Zeus posted a thoughtful analysis of Gartner's Magic Quadrant (MQ) for CCaaS (Contact Center as a Service). His commentary was exactly what we want to see in professional discourse: detailed, balanced, and backed by deep industry knowledge. He made several astute observations about vendor positions, including NICE 's strong execution, questions about Genesys 's placement, and Amazon Web Services (AWS) 's potentially understated execution capabilities.

What made Zeus's analysis particularly valuable was his framing context about the MQ's limitations as a decision tool, noting the absence of crucial factors like company size and primary channels. Critical engagement with influential research helps the entire industry make better decisions.

The Surprising Takedown Request

However, what happened next was troubling. Gartner's Ellen Keane contacted Zeus, claiming copyright violation and requesting the post's removal. Zeus ultimately complied, though he rightly questioned whether his use fell under Fair Use doctrine.

The Fair Use Analysis

As an IP lawyer, I believe Zeus's use of the MQ diagram alongside his analysis likely constituted Fair Use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. Let's examine the four key factors:

1. Purpose and character of use: Zeus's post was clearly transformative, adding substantial original analysis and criticism
2. Nature of copyrighted work: The MQ is factual rather than creative work, which typically receives less protection
3. Amount used: Only the specific relevant MQ diagram was shared, not extensive portions of Gartner's research
4. Effect on potential market: The analysis was unlikely to substitute for Gartner's commercial services

The Bigger Picture

What makes Gartner's response particularly unfortunate is that it seems to misunderstand its own interests. As SageCircle has astutely noted, the MQ's greatest value comes from sparking meaningful discussions between analysts and technology buyers about specific needs and contexts. Professional discourse about MQ placements benefits everyone:

• Buyers get richer context for decision-making
• Vendors receive valuable market feedback
• Gartner's research gains wider visibility and credibility
• The industry benefits from transparent dialogue about methodology and findings

Why This Matters

The CCaaS market's maturity raises valid questions about why Gartner continues producing an MQ rather than transitioning to a Market Guide format. While revenue considerations likely play a role, the MQ's enduring influence makes it crucial to maintain robust, professional discussion about its findings and methodology.

A Call for Balance

I respectfully suggest that Gartner reconsider its approach. While protecting intellectual property is important, overaggressive enforcement that chills legitimate Fair Use and professional discourse serves neither Gartner's interests nor the broader technology community.

Zeus's analysis exemplified the kind of thoughtful, constructive criticism that advances industry understanding. Rather than shutting down such discussions, Gartner should welcome them as evidence of its research's continued relevance and impact.

The next time an experienced analyst provides detailed commentary on an MQ, I hope Gartner will recognize it as Fair Use and embrace the valuable dialogue it generates. After all, in the rapidly evolving technology landscape, we need more informed discussion, not less.

Barry Stuart is a former intellectual property lawyer with over thirty years of experience in technology and copyright law. He is now the Chief Operations Officer at SageCircle LLP.