Remove 2022 Remove Copying Remove Fair Use Remove Ownership
article thumbnail

US—Copyright Round-Up

Kluwer Copyright Blog

Recent appellate decisions in the United States have recognized expanded grounds for personal jurisdiction in cases of internet-based copyright infringements; divided on the extent to which the three-year statute of limitations limits damage recoveries; and increased the occasions for motions to dismiss on the ground of fair use.

article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

” With respect to whether Babybus’ baby character infringed Moonbug’s baby, Babybus claimed that the alleged copying related to generic features found in nature. . 2022 WL 580788 (N.D. New Destiny Church. * ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v. ” Subjective Bad Faith.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Kat Von D, Think Before You Ink

IPilogue

On May 31, 2022, Judge Dale S. Fischer found triable issues on substantial similarity and fair use. In comparison, previous copyright infringement cases over tattoo art focus on an existing tattoo being reproduced in another work rather than the copying of a reference image. Background. For example, in Alexander v.

article thumbnail

Court Quashes 512(h) Subpoena on First Amendment Grounds–In re 512(h) Subpoena to Twitter

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Soon after, an entity called Bayside asserted copyright ownership of the photos and sent 512(c)(3) takedown notices to Twitter followed by a 512(h) subpoena to unmask CallMeMoneyBags. ” Second, Bayside said that copyright already accommodates First Amendment considerations via the fair use defense (citing the Reddit case ).

article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

McCandless Group, LLC, 2022 WL 17403067 (C.D. Day to Day Imports. * Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court. * 512(f) Preempts Tortious Interference Claim–Copy Me That v. New Destiny Church. * ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v. Case Citation : Digital Marketing Advisors v.

article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

2022 WL 4599203 (D. Day to Day Imports. * Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court. * 512(f) Preempts Tortious Interference Claim–Copy Me That v. Heldman. * Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Ningbo Mizhihe v Doe. * Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)–Hughes v.

article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Chen , 2022 WL 742429 (N.D. March 11, 2022). Day to Day Imports. * Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court. * 512(f) Preempts Tortious Interference Claim–Copy Me That v. New Destiny Church. * ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v. Prior Posts on Section 512(f).

Copyright 128