Remove Cease and Desist Remove Fair Use 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

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 135
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Viral DRM Awarded Damages for Its 512(f) Claims, But At What Cost?

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This is a copyright ownership dispute that spilled over to Spotify, who received takedown notices. Barrett Financial * 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership DisputeShande v. Heldman * Another 512(f) Claim FailsNingbo Mizhihe v Doe * Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)Hughes v.

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

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

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.

Copyright 134
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.

Fair Use 111
article thumbnail

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

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.

Fair Use 122