Cease and Desist Designs Litigation Ownership 
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
AUGUST 16, 2023
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 litigants are an employer and former employee.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
MARCH 15, 2022
The court says the takedown notices are covered by the litigation privilege: “Since the statements at issue here were made to Amazon during the notice and takedown period, they are absolutely privileged. That’s by design–the DMCA was designed to resolve matters outside of court. Defamation.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Biswajit Sarkar Copyright Blog
JANUARY 16, 2024
These rights provide exclusive ownership and control over intangible assets, allowing creators to protect their innovations from unauthorised use, reproduction, or distribution. Firstly, intellectual property rights grant startups exclusive ownership over their innovative ideas and inventions.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
MAY 2, 2022
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. Five years into this litigation, let’s take stock of all of the things we still don’t know: Is hiQ still an operational business?
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
APRIL 1, 2023
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.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
DECEMBER 5, 2022
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. . * ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
NOVEMBER 30, 2023
Instead, Source Capital alleges the DMCA takedown notices were “knowingly false” and designed to kick Source Capital out of the Google search results during the high season. Prior Posts on Section 512(f) * 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership Dispute–Shande v. Hawai‘i Aug. Zoox * Surprise!
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
64 
Let's personalize your content