Cease and Desist Fair Use Marketing 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 hosting service honored the takedown notice.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
DECEMBER 5, 2022
Case Citation : Digital Marketing Advisors 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. New Destiny Church. * ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v. McCandless Group, LLC, 2022 WL 17403067 (C.D.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
IP Tech Blog
NOVEMBER 29, 2023
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
LexBlog IP
NOVEMBER 29, 2023
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. ,
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
APRIL 1, 2023
So this post is 100% true, even if it might sound farcical. * * * This ruling is part of an ongoing multi-iteration tussle (in and out of court) over market share between two rival unions. I’m pretty sure the drafters of 512(f) never contemplated that it would be invoked in disputes over ownership. BONUS 2: Barz Adventures Inc.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
APRIL 29, 2023
Maritas * 512(f) Plaintiff Must Pay $91k to the Defense–Digital Marketing 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. New Destiny Church * ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v.
Technology & Marketing Law Blog
AUGUST 8, 2021
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. ” Market Effect. ” Amount Taken.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
64 
Let's personalize your content