Remove Cease and Desist Remove Fair Use Remove Litigation 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 litigants are an employer and former employee.

article thumbnail

People Don’t Come to See the Tattoo, They Come to See the Show

IP Tech Blog

Because ownership of original works, like a tattoo, vests with the author (here the tattoo artist), the tattoo artist owned the copyright in the tattoo, even though it was physically on the someone else’s body. Netflix moved to dismiss the complaint on, among other grounds, fair use. Lynn Goldsmith, et al. , Koons , 467 F.3d

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

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. So extending the litigation privilege to DMCA takedown notices seems like an overreach. Defamation. Federici. * Biosafe-One v.

Copyright 128
article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

“Plaintiff’s takedown letters and supporting document establish facially plausible claims of infringement, and Babybus does not allege a plausible basis for a fair use defense.” 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

Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

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. The Crony graphic also doesn’t qualify for fair use: Nature of Use. The court rejects Goodman’s motion to dismiss.

Fair Use 131
article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Heldman. * Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Ningbo Mizhihe v Doe. * Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)–Hughes v. New Destiny Church. * ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v. Klein. * 9th Circuit Sides With Fair Use in Dancing Baby Takedown Case–Lenz v.

article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

400 in damages after 4 years of litigation won’t put a smile on anyone’s face. Heldman. * Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Ningbo Mizhihe v Doe. * Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)–Hughes v. New Destiny Church. * ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v.

Fair Use 105