Home » Copyright Law Updates » New Judicial Opinions
Copyright Law Summaries
| » | New Judicial Opinions |
| New Settlements and Verdicts | |
| New Statutes, Regulations and Rules | |
| New Federal Register Notices | |
| New Proposed Legislation |
Ninth Circuit Allows "Lassie" to Come Back Home to its Author's Family, Rules Against Its Assignee, Classic Media, Inc.
Classic Media, Inc.
Nos. 06-55385, 06-55704,
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 07/11/2008
Holding: In a copyright dispute regarding the fictional novel and story "Lassie Come Home" ("Lassie Works"), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the daughter of its author, defendant Winifred Knight Mewborn ("Mewborn") , in her controversy with Lassie Television, Inc. ("LTI"), the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiff Classic Media, Inc. ("Classic"). Each party had earlier filed for declaratory relief as to their respective copyright interests in the Lassie Works, works that were in their renewal copyright terms in their 1978 assignment of rights from Mewborn to LTI. The lower court, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California , had sided with Classic, holding that Mewborn had already relinquished her termination right, and the 1996 Notice of Termination was ineffective because Mewborn no longer had any interest in the copyright transferred via the 1976 and 1978 assignments (the "1976 Assignment" and "1978 Assignment", respectively) . On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for Classic, stating that Mewborn did not waive her termination rights in the 1978 assignment. Consequently, the Ninth Circuit found that the 1996 Termination Notice was effective, and that any rights assigned to LTI by the 1976 Assignment reverted to Mewborn as of the effective termination date, May 1, 1998. The Ninth Circuit thus directed the District Court to enter partial summary judgment in favor of Mewborn on her claim for declaratory relief. More...
Seventh Circuit Remands Safety Manual Copyright Infringement Case to Award Attorneys' Fees to Prevailing Defendant
Eagle Services Corp. v. H2O Industrial Services, Inc.
No. 07-1997,
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 07/09/2008
Holding: In this infringement dispute over plaintiff-appellee Eagle Services Corp.'s ("Eagle") copyrighted safety manual, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed the decision of the District Court for the Northern District of Indiana's decision, and remanded the case to compute and award reasonable attorneys' fees to defendant-appellant H20 Industrial Services, Inc. ("H2O"). Eagle sued H20 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana for copyright infringement for the use of Eagle's safety manual. H20 prevailed in the District Court on a motion for judgment as a matter of law, but appealed the District Court's refusal to grant attorneys fees. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit overturned the District Court's finding that the suit was not frivolous and was not filed in bad faith. The rule in a copyright case, under Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. Section 505, is that a prevailing defendant receives an award of attorneys' fees unless the plaintiff shows its lawsuit was neither frivolous or filed in bad faith. Here, Eagle failed to demonstrate the validity of its suit against H2O and was ordered to pay attorneys' fees. More...
NY District Court Orders Google to Provide Viacom with Vital Data of Google's YouTube Users in $1 Billion Infringement Suit
Viacom, Inc., et al. v. YouTube, Inc., et al.
07 Civ. 2103 (LLS)/ 07 Civ. 3582 (LLS),
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 07/01/2008
Holding: In a ruling on a motion to compel production of evidence as part of Plaintiff Viacom, Inc. and Future Association Premier League Limited 's ("Viacom") $1 billion copyright infringement lawsuit against Defendants YouTube, Inc., YouTube, LLC, and Google, Inc. , which owns and operates the video-sharing website known as “YouTube.com” ("Google"), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York required Google to provide the viewing log of YouTube.com , a website owned by Google. The viewing log will be used by Viacom to demonstrate instances of copyright infringement on YouTube.com. In an effort to stop this disclosure, Defendant argued that the data should not be revealed because of YouTube users’ privacy concerns. The District Court rejected this argument, stating that Defendants did not show precedent barring such disclosure in civil discovery proceedings, and that their users' privacy concerns were merely speculative. Therefore, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of 12 terabytes of data containing the unique login ID of each viewer, the time he began watching, the Internet Protocol, or IP, address of the user's computer and the identification of the video. More...
Eleventh Circuit Upholds National Geographic’s Right to Reproduce Photos First Published in its Magazine in CD-ROM Compilation
Greenberg v. National Geographic Society, et al.
No. 05-16964,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 06/30/2008
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the right of defendant-appellant National Geographic Society (the “Society”) to reproduce photographic works featured in National Geographic Magazine (“Magazine”) in CD-ROM digital compilation without additional permission. Plaintiff-respondent, photographer Jerry Greenberg (“Greenberg”), sued for copyright infringement after the Society reproduced and distributed his works that were previously published in the Magazine in CD-Rom. Citing Section 201(c) of the Copyright Act of 1976 and case law on the topic, the Eleventh Circuit rejected Greenberg’s argument that the CD-Rom digital compilation was an entirely new collective work, and that publication of his works in this new format constituted copyright infringement. On the contrary, the Eleventh Circuit declared, the CD-ROM compilation was a mere revision, or a new version, of the works found in the Magazine. The Court reasoned that the CD-ROM format should not deprive the Society of its reproduction right under Section 201(c) because it did not destroy the original context in which Greenberg’s photographs originally appeared. Therefore, the Court reversed the jury award of $400,000.00 in favor of Greenberg. More...
Ninth Circuit: MGM Pictures, and Not the Creator of Pink Panther, Owns the Copyright to “The Pink Panther” Motion Picture
Bradley Richlin, et al. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Inc., et al.
No. 06-55307,
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 06/19/2008
Holding: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Inc., and not the heirs of the creator of Pink Panther, owns the copyright to the Pink Panther motion picture (“Motion Picture”). In affirming the decision of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit held that circumstances of the case, including an Assignment and Employment Agreement entered into by the creator, Maurice Richlin (“Richlin”), and the film company, as well as the absence of supervisory powers of Richlin over the motion picture, demonstrated that Richlin was not a co-author of the motion picture. Although Richlin was the co-author of the “Treatment” that was a critical component of the film, the motion picture’s certificate of registration issued in 1963 and its renewal in 1991 identified the company as its sole claimant and author. Further, Richlin failed to secure a separate federal statutory copyright protection for the "Treatment." The Ninth Circuit found that because Richlin neither co-owned nor coauthored the Pink Panther motion picture, neither he nor his heirs have any interest in its copyright. More...
Copyright Law Commentaries
Following are Copyright Law Commentaries elaborating on the significance of the most important of the Copyright Law Summaries.
Derek Andrew v. Poof Apparel: No statutory damages available when copyright infringement begins pre-registration
Derek Andrew v. Poof Apparel
Posted: 08/07/2008
Commentary: Under the Copyright Act, a registered copyright owner has the option to elect to recover either statutory damages or actual damages for infringement. Because actual damages are often difficult to prove, the option to elect statutory damages is extremely valuable. Section 412 of the Copyright Act, however, limits the option of statutory damages available to a copyright owner when infringement occurs prior to the registration of the copyright in question, even if the infringement also occurs after the registration. In Derek Andrew v. Poof Apparel, 528 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit Court joined the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuit in barring the option of statutory damages for ongoing infringement, that is, where infringement begins pre-registration and continues post-registration. The lesson for copyright owners is clear: get your copyright registered as soon as possible to maximize the types of recovery available to you against infringers. More...
Related summary: Ninth Circuit Reverses Statutory Damage Award against Apparel Company, But Remands Attorneys’ Fees Award
Litecubes v. Northern Lights Products: Extending the Extraterritorial Reach of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Litecubes, L.L.C. and Carl R. Vanderschuit v. Northern Lights Products, Inc.
Posted: 05/13/2008
Commentary: The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Litecubes LLC v. Northern Light Products clarified some critical elements of IP litigation jurisprudence. Litecubes LLC v. Northern Light Products, ___ F3d ___, 2008 WL 1848659 (C.A. Fed. (Mo.)) The Litecubes Court took the opportunity to clarify a few issues that have been the source of confusion in the IP arena, particularly regarding infringement claims with extraterritorial aspects. Specifically, the Litecubes Court addressed the fact that proof that the infringing activity takes place in the United States is proof of an element of infringement, but it is not relevant to the question of subject matter jurisdiction. More...
Related summary: Federal Circuit Affirms District Court’s Findings Against GlowProducts on LiteCubes’ Ice Cube
Bridgeport v. Combs: Putting Limits on Punitive Damage Awards in Copyright Action
Bridgeport Music, et al. v. Justin Combs Publishing, et al.
Posted: 12/04/2007
Commentary: It was once highly unusual for a successful copyright infringement plaintiff to win punitive damages – indeed, most courts have held that punitives were wholly unavailable for claims under the federal Copyright Act. But in the last decade, courts have been increasingly willing to allow punitive damages in actions based on both federal and state common law, and the awards are getting bigger and bigger. In Bridgeport v. Combs, 507 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 2007), the 6th Circuit puts some parameters around these awards, explaining why a jury’s $3.5 million punitive damages award was unconstitutionally excessive, and offering future courts some guidance on assessing punitive damage awards More...
Related summary: Sixth Circuit Orders Remittitur of Punitive Damage Award in Bridgeport Music v. Justin Combs Case
US v. ASCAP: Downloading Music from the Internet Does Not Constitute a Public Performance for Which a Performance Royalty Fee Is Due to ASCAP; Only A Reproduction Fee Applies.
U.S. v. American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers
Posted: 09/20/2007
Commentary: In its decision in US v. ASCAP, 485 F. Supp. 2d 438 (SDNY 2007), the Southern District of New York clarified how the Copyright Law concept of “public performance” applies to the Internet concepts of downloading versus streaming. While on its face, the decision appears to establish a bright line rule, the Court did acknowledge the possibility of more questionable applications in the future. More...
Related summary: Downloading of a Music File Not A Public Performance, District Court Declares in U.S. v. ASCAP
In Amazon.com Case, Court Classifies Framed Display of Images in Web Search Engines as Fair Use
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
Posted: 07/26/2007
Commentary: In this appeal brought by both the copyright owner Perfect 10, Inc. and defendants which included Internet search engine and Internet retailer (Google, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc.), the Court of Appeals ruled that the Internet search engine operator's act of framing in-line linked full-size images of copyrighted photographs on its website did not constitute "display" of copies of such photographs, within the meaning of Copyright Act, as would amount to copyright infringement. Although the storage and transmission of a thumbnail image version of a full-size copyrighted image is considered direct infringement of the exclusive right to display a work, the use falls under the fair use exception. More...
Related summary: Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.
