Remove 2003 Remove Contracts Remove Copying Remove Ownership
article thumbnail

Once Again, LinkedIn Can’t Use CFAA To Stop Unwanted Scraping–hiQ v. LinkedIn

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The court remains skeptical of LinkedIn’s privacy-based arguments: LinkedIn has no protected property interest in the data contributed by its users, as the users retain ownership over their profiles. It’s sooooooo 2003. Irreparable Harm / Balance of Equities : The court confirms that no viable alternative data sources exist for hiQ.

article thumbnail

If “Trespass to Chattels” Isn’t Limited to “Chattels,” Anarchy Ensues–Best Carpet Values v. Google

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Plaintiffs want and expect Google to copy and display their websites in Chrome browser and Search App, and acknowledge that Google has license to do so.” Citing a 2003 Ninth Circuit case, Kremen v. .” Implied-in-Law Contract/Unjust Enrichment. ” Wait, what? We need to know more about this license.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

IPSC Panel 9 – Crosscutting IP

43(B)log

Industry pushed very hard against cheap copying, and yet as of 2019 there were only 538 registrations in 20 years versus hundreds of thousands of utility patents. Was more heavily used 1999-2003. Ownership is of linguistic description of structural properties of invention. Examples: Vessel Hull Design Protection Act.

IP 45
article thumbnail

Not Invincible: A Cautionary Tale for Creators

Copyright Lately

Crabtree claims that Kirkman talked him into giving up co-ownership rights in “Invincible” by asking him to sign a document in 2005 that Kirkman represented would make it easier to market the work to licensees but which wouldn’t affect any of Crabtree’s rights. The Requirements for Copyright Joint Authorship and Co-Ownership.

article thumbnail

A Preliminary Analysis of Trump’s Copyright Lawsuit Over Interview Recordings (Trump v. Simon & Schuster) (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Third, is Trump’s claim of ownership barred by 17 U.S.C. A work is fixed in either a “copy” or a “phonorecord.” “Phonorecords” are defined as material objects in which only sounds are fixed, while “copies” are defined as material objects in which any other kind of work is fixed. [ 17 U.S.C. Rural Telephone Service Co. ,

Copyright 121