Remove Cease and Desist Remove Copying Remove Ownership
article thumbnail

512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership Dispute–Shande v. Zoox

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

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. The hosting service honored the takedown notice.

article thumbnail

NFTs Excite Hollywood But Not Because They Can Solve Piracy

TorrentFreak

In addition to the ‘collectible’ aspect, NFTs can also be used as proof of ownership or access. Pirates can still copy the content and share it elsewhere, NFTs can’t prevent that. The NFT simply creates a chain of alleged ownership of the particular copy.” Piracy remains a concern, however.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

SpicyIP Weekly Review (October 21-October 27)

SpicyIP

The Court held that the defendants had copied the plaintiff’s mark and passed off their products as those of the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was not a subscriber to the plaintiff’s subscription agreement/license for receiving news content and copied its content verbatim, despite a cease-and-desist notice.

Trademark 103
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. . Day to Day Imports. * Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court. * 512(f) Preempts Tortious Interference Claim–Copy Me That v.

Fair Use 111
article thumbnail

Record Label Sends Bogus Takedown Notice, Defeats 512(f) Claim Anyway–White v. UMG

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

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.

Fair Use 105
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. Are robots.txt, IP address blocks, or cease-and-desist letters still relevant to the CFAA at all? Eric’s Comments.

article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Day to Day Imports. * Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court. * 512(f) Preempts Tortious Interference Claim–Copy Me That v. 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. Alper Automotive v.

Copyright 134