Remove Cease and Desist 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

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.

Copyright 134
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

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. 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?

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

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. 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. But who thinks the plaintiff got a good outcome in court here?

Fair Use 122
article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

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.

Fair Use 111
article thumbnail

Big YouTube Channel Gets TRO Against Being Targeted by DMCA Copyright Takedown Notices–Invisible Narratives v. Next Level Apps

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Barrett Financial * 512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership DisputeShande v. Universal * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) CaseAutomattic v. Zoox * Surprise! Another 512(f) Claim FailsBored Ape Yacht Club v.