Copyright Law Summaries
Silver Ring Splint Company v. Digisplint, Inc.
Civil No. 3:06cv00065, 2008 WL 1000775 ,
District Court for the Western District of Virginia, 04/09/2008
Holding: On a motion for summary judgment involving four claims of infringement, a Virginia district court ruled that no reasonable jury could return a verdict that defendant Digisplint’s website selling finger splint products did not infringe plaintiff Silver Ring Splint’s copyright relating to its 1994 sales catalog also selling finger splint products. The district court made a side by side comparison of the features of plaintiff’s catalog and defendant’s October 2006 website, and found that the two were substantially similar. Because the respective features of the catalog and website demonstrated numerous instances of verbatim or near-verbatim copying, the court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff. However, with respect to defendant’s 2007 website, handbill, and its “Digisplint Canada” Brochure, the district court found that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to the substantial similarity of these works to plaintiff’s catalog and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to these three works.
More...
The Nichols Agency, Inc. v. Enchanted Child Care, Inc.
Civil No. CCB-07-1757, 2008 WL 659507,
D.Md., 02/26/2008
Holding: The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed a claim for breach of contract relating to plaintiff The Nichols Agency’s (“NAI”) copyrighted marketing works. According to the Court, NAI’s breach of contract claim that defendant Enchanted Child Care, Inc. (“ECCI”) displayed its commercials without permission was “substantively similar” to its Copyright Act claim that ECCI reproduced and distributed these works without its consent. Because the breach of contract claim was not separate and distinct from the Copyright Act claim, the Court held that federal law on copyright preempted the state law contract claim. Therefore, the dismissal of the contract claim was warranted.
More...
Shuptrine v. McDougal Litell, et al.
No. 1:07-CV-181, 2008 WL 400453,
E.D.Tenn., 02/12/2008
Holding: The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied defendant textbook publisher‘s motion to dismiss a fraud claim. Plaintiff copyright holder accused defendant of entering into a relationship allegedly under false pretenses designed to lower the cost of obtaining the copyrighted paintings. Even though this stated fraud could not have existed without the alleged copyright infringement, the fraud accusation was “more than just copyright infringement.” The state law claim of fraud was “qualitatively different” from the claim of copyright infringement. In so holding, the court concluded that the Copyright Act did not preempt the fraud claim.
More...
The Romantics, et al. v. Activision Publishing, Inc., et al.
No. 07-14969, 2008 WL 186370,
E.D.Mich., 01/22/2008
Holding: The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, denied plaintiff rock band members’ application for a preliminary injunction that sought to restrain a video game’s use of a new recording of their song. According to the trial court, plaintiffs failed to establish the requisite of having “a likelihood of success on the merits for their state law claim of a violation of the right of publicity.” Under the circumstances of this case, this claim would be governed by Michigan law. However, Michigan has never recognized right of publicity in the sound of a voice. Further, the game in dispute was an “expressive artistic work entitled to First Amendment protection” because it (the game) contains “significant transformative elements.” On the basis of this reasoning, the court ruled that the denial of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was proper.
More...
John Doe a/k/a Brian Sapient v. Uri Geller and Explorologist, Ltd.
No. C 07-2478 VRW, 2008 WL 314498,
N.D.Cal., 02/04/2008
Holding: The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed this action for damages filed under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and for declaratory judgment of non-infringement. In ruling against plaintiff, the trial court identified crucial factual circumstances that weighed against the exercise of personal jurisdiction: both parties were not residents of California, plaintiff did not allege violation of California law, the owner of YouTube.com, the website where the infringing activity was posted, was not a party to the action, and California's interest in free speech, as reflected in its constitution and statute banning use of lawsuits to stifle free speech, applied only to California residents. The district court in Pennsylvania could “most efficiently resolve” plaintiff’s claims since defendants’ action for copyright infringement in that forum was a “mirror image” of plaintiff’s assertions presented before the California court. In light of these reasons, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
More...
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 >
