Copyright Law Summaries
Page 1 of 17 of Copyright Law Summaries » New Judicial Opinions 1 2 3 > Last »
Ryan v. Editions Ltd., Inc.
No. C 06-04812 PVT,
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 09/15/2008
Holding: In this case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied injunctive relief to Plaintiff Victoria Ryan, an owner of copyrighted original art works. Earlier, Plaintiff Ryan sold her art works through Defendant Editions Limited West, Inc. ("EWL"), a retailer. EWL cancelled the contract due to lack of sales of Ryan’s works. After cancellation, EWL encouraged other affiliated artists to produce and distribute copies of Ryan's original art works. Plaintiff then requested the issuance of injunction on her state claim of unfair competition and federal claim of copyright infringement. The District Court rejected such request, in the light of representations by EWL that it would no longer violate Ryan's copyright. The District Court however found that EWL did engage in unfair competition since it maintained a policy in favor of permitting transfers of owned work, without regard to whether the copyright owner authorized the copies, and promoted that policy by deceptive practices. Notwithstanding this finding of unfair competition, the federal claim of copyright infringement preempted such state claim. The District Court reasoned that the rights sought to be enforced under state laws are equivalent to those protected under the Copyright Act, and that Ryan's art work fell within the subject matter of the same Act.
More...
Rodriguez, et al. v. Heidi Klum Company, LLC, et al.
No. 05 Civ 10218 (LAP),
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 09/30/2008
Holding: In this battle of fashion shows, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Heidi Klum's Project Runway program did not infringe the copyrighted treatment of Plaintiffs Cynthia Rodriguez and Elizabeth Zwiebach for their show American Runway. Specifically, the District Court gave two basic reasons for granting the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants, led by Heidi Klum Company, LLC. First, Plaintiffs were unable to establish actual copying by Defendants because of Plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate access. Second, the concept, feel, and theme of Project Runway are plainly distinguishable from those of American Runway. Project Runway does not ostensibly bend to its audience; the viewer is given a glimpse into the world of high fashion and is allowed to watch fashion experts decide which of the contestants deserves admission into the industry. On the other hand, American Runway is more populist and inclusive; the viewer has input into the outcome of the show, and the program caters to engaging the fashion sensibilities of its real American audience.
More...
U2 Home Entertainment, Inc., v. Hong Wei International Trading, Inc.
No. 04 Civ. 6189 (JFK),
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 08/21/2008
Holding: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered Hong Wei International Trading, Inc. (“Hong Wei”) and Jixong Ni (“Ni”, and collectively, the “Defendants”) to pay U2 Home Entertainment Corp. (“U2 Home” or “Plaintiff”) statutory damages of $670,500, plus costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for unlawful copying and renting of copies of Plaintiff’s Chinese-language television shows. In particular, the District Court found that the minimum statutory award of $750 per infringed episode was entirely appropriate, and easily justified by strong evidence of Defendants’ willfulness, and the obvious need to deter them from committing future acts of infringement. Defendants copied U2 Home’s copyrighted programs onto their own video compact discs ("VCDs") in breach of the parties' Sublicensing Agreement and in blatant defiance of a previously ordered Permanent Injunction. Under such circumstances, there was no question that a grant of the minimum award provided by statute was warranted. In addition, an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to U2 Home was likewise called for in this case, in light of the Defendants’ willful conduct.
More...
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. RDR Books
No. 07-cv-09667,
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 09/08/2008
Holding: In a dispute regarding the world-renowned "Harry Potter" book and film series, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that a planned publication of an encyclopedia about these works infringed the copyrights of author J. K. Rowling and Time-Warner, Inc. unit Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. The suit alleged that defendant RDR Books ("RDR") sought to publish a print edition of the Harry Potter Lexicon ("Lexicon"), a website that provided a compendium of all things related to the series, and that such publication would take away the future market for a similar compendium that Rowling plans to write. Defendant raised the defense of fair use, but the District Court rejected this argument. Citing a substantial amount of verbatim copying, the District Court found that the Lexicon appropriated too much of Rowling's creative work for its purposes as a reference guide. Finding that publication of the Lexicon would cause irreparable harm to the sales of Rowling’s companion books, the District Court issued permanent injunction to Plaintiffs. The District Court likewise granted Plaintiffs' request for statutory damages. Since the Lexicon had not been published and thus Plaintiffs have suffered no harm beyond the fact of infringement, the District Court awarded Plaintiffs the minimum award under the statute for each work with respect to which Plaintiffs have established infringement. Plaintiffs were entitled to statutory damages of $750.00 for each of the seven Harry Potter novels and each of the two companion books, for a total of $6,750.00.
More...
IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc.
No. C06-03926 HRL,
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 08/27/2008
Holding: In this copyright infringement dispute that pitted video-maker IO Group, Inc. ("IO") and video-sharing website Veoh Networks, Inc. ("Veoh"), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Veoh should not be held liable for infringing video materials that are uploaded by its users. The District Court held that qualified service providers like Veoh are protected by the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) that protects them from liability for claimed copyright infringement. Here, Veoh has instituted safeguards to qualify for coverage under such provisions. In particular, Veoh has an active system for dealing with copyright infringement on its site, ranging from having a "copyright agent" whose job it is to take care of complaints from copyright owners to a policy that terminates users who continue to upload infringing videos. In sum, far from encouraging copyright infringement, Veoh has a strong DMCA policy, takes active steps to limit incidents of infringement on its Web site and works diligently to keep unauthorized works off its Web site. On the basis of the foregoing, the District Court granted Veoh's motion for summary judgment.
More...
Page 1 of 17 of Copyright Law Summaries » New Judicial Opinions 1 2 3 > Last »
Copyright Law Commentaries
Following are Copyright Law Commentaries elaborating on the significance of the most important of the Copyright Law Summaries.
Page 1 of 2 of Copyright Law Commentaries 1 2 >
Robert Jacobsen v. Matthew Katzer, et al.
Posted: 12/16/2008
Commentary: In an opinion seen as a major development in open source jurisprudence, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008), open source licenses create conditions on the scope of the license, and failure to comply with those conditions may constitute copyright infringement.
More...
Related summary: Federal Circuit Holds That Open Source Code Licensors Are Entitled to Copyright Protection Governing Use of Code
The Cartoon Network LP, LLLP, et al. v. CSC Holdings, Inc. et al.
Posted: 09/18/2008
Commentary: In Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings, 536 F.3d 121 (2nd Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit reversed a District Court’s ruling and determined that a remote-storage DVR service does not infringe on the reproduction and public performance rights of copyright holders. This significant holding, which will likely be referenced in a variety of future opinions, offers some interesting ramifications. It offers consumers an opening for increased flexibility in viewing choices, and offers developers of new technology a more generous interpretation of copyright law. Critics contend the ruling opens the door for new defenses for infringers and interprets copyright law in a fashion that impedes traditional copyright protection. Either way, the decision stands at the juxtaposition between existing copyright law and emerging technology.
More...
Related summary: Playback of Films on Cablevision's Remote Storage DVR System Not Copyright Infringement, Second Circuit Rules
Richlin v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures
Posted: 09/11/2008
Commentary: In Richlin v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, 531 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2008), the heirs of one coauthor of the treatment that served as the basis of “The Pink Panther” series of movies asserted an interest in the motion picture copyright. The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment and agreed with the district court that the coauthor of a story treatment is not necessarily the coauthor of a subsequent movie based on that treatment, and therefore cannot necessarily claim a copyright interest in the movie. Accordingly, renewal of the copyright in the motion picture had no impact on the treatment coauthor’s interest.
More...
Related summary: Ninth Circuit: MGM Pictures, and Not the Creator of Pink Panther, Owns the Copyright to “The Pink Panther” Motion Picture
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, 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
Page 1 of 2 of Copyright Law Commentaries 1 2 >
