This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Shemaroo entered into assignment deeds with the producers and owners of the suit films between 2004-2016, acquiring sole, exclusive and absolute ownership of all the vested copyrights. However, after expiration of the period, Defendant 2 continued to exploit rights against which Plaintiff issued a cease and desist notice twice.
This paradigm, however, breaks down when copyright ownership is contested. In that circumstance, the takedown notice becomes a proxy battle for a larger and likely fact-dependent war over ownership, which the service in the middle isn’t in a good position to resolve. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017?
Despite UMG’s lack of ownership in the beat, UMG’s “content protection specialist” found the song Oi! It’s not like UMG had some colorable reason to think it owned the beat; its takedown notice was the direct and foreseeable consequence of its own incomplete tracking of its asset ownership and licensing status.
Benjamin. * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Universal. * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership. * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Summit Entertainment. * Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v.
LinkedIn lawsuit started in 2017. 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. Are robots.txt, IP address blocks, or cease-and-desist letters still relevant to the CFAA at all?
Benjamin. * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Universal. * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership. * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Summit Entertainment. * Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v.
Benjamin. * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Universal. * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership. * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Summit Entertainment. * Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v.
Benjamin. * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Universal. * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership. * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Summit Entertainment. * Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v.
Construing these allegations as true and in Service’s favor, Service subjectively believed that he possessed an ownership interest and that he never approved the Comedy Dynamics deal. I’m pretty sure the drafters of 512(f) never contemplated that it would be invoked in disputes over ownership.
Benjamin. * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Universal. * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership. * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Summit Entertainment. * Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v.
Benjamin. * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Universal. * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership. * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Summit Entertainment. * Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v.
Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Universal * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Summit Entertainment * Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v.
Barrett Financial * 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership DisputeShande v. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Universal * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) CaseAutomattic v. Zoox * Surprise!
Prior Posts on Section 512(f) * 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership Dispute–Shande v. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Universal * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Hawai‘i Aug.
Benjamin. * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Universal. * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership. * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Summit Entertainment. * Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v.
In November 2016, Respondent sent a cease-and-desist letter to Petitioner, demanding transfer of the domain name to Respondent. To the extent Petitioner’s belief in damage may have existed at the time Petitioner brought these proceedings in January 2017, clearly it has not been maintained. Simpson , 170 F.3d
In Matrimony.com Ltd v Google LLC 2012 CCI considers ownership and access to data as a crucial driver in technological markets but Vinod Kumar Gupta v WhatsApp Inc 2016 and Track Call Cab Pvt Ltd v ANI Technologies 2015 reveal the idea is often dispelled if there is multi-homing among users. Reference 1.
Barrett Financial * 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership DisputeShande v. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Universal * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) CaseAutomattic v. Zoox * Surprise!
Barrett Financial * 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership DisputeShande v. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Universal * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) CaseAutomattic v. Zoox * Surprise!
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content