Remove 2017 Remove Cease and Desist Remove Copyright Remove Fair Use
article thumbnail

Court Mistakenly Thinks Copyright Owners Have a Duty to Police Infringement–Sunny Factory v. Chen

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Fuxi, the putative copyright owner, has a registration for an image of printed sage leaves (the left image): The alleged infringer, the Sunny Factory, sells the candles on the right on Amazon. ” Copyright owners don’t have any policing duty. Benjamin. * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Implications.

Copyright 129
article thumbnail

Surprise! Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Bored Ape Yacht Club v. Ripps

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Of the efficacious four, three were based exclusively on trademark rights, not copyright. The court says those aren’t DMCA takedown notices by definition, because they didn’t assert any copyright interests; so they are outside 512(f)’s scope. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017?

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The Television Academies sued Goodman for copyright infringement, trademark infringement and dilution, and defamation. Copyright Infringement/Fair Use. The Crony graphic appeared as the video’s thumbnail image and in the video’s first 10 seconds, so it was not a de minimis use. Trademark Dilution.

Fair Use 131
article thumbnail

Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Moonbug v. Babybus

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Babybus runs a competitive channel that Moonbug believes infringes its copyrights. An example: Moonbug submitted takedown notices to YouTube covering at least 70 videos and sued Babybus for copyright infringement. Benjamin. * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Babybus counterclaimed for 512(f).

article thumbnail

Anti-Circumvention Takedowns Aren’t Covered by 512(f)–Yout v. RIAA

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

One weird piece: the court implies that a copyright owner can enforce violations of access control limits deployed by third parties, i.e., RIAA could sue Yout for Yout’s violation of YouTube’s access control technology. Benjamin. * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? The complaint.

article thumbnail

512(f) Plaintiff Must Pay $91k to the Defense–Digital Marketing v. McCandless

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Day to Day Imports. * Court Mistakenly Thinks Copyright Owners Have a Duty to Police Infringement–Sunny Factory v. Okularity. * Copyright Plaintiffs Can’t Figure Out What Copyrights They Own, Court Says ¯_(?)_/¯. * A 512(f) Case Leads to a Rare Damages Award (on a Default Judgment)–California Beach v.

article thumbnail

11th Circuit UPHOLDS a 512(f) Plaintiff Win on Appeal–Alper Automotive v. Day to Day Imports

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The Copyright Office registered this work: The registration makes sense with the landscape backgrounds. Court Mistakenly Thinks Copyright Owners Have a Duty to Police Infringement–Sunny Factory v. Benjamin. * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? The Lower Court Ruling. This is a messy case with complex facts.

Fair Use 106