Remove Cease and Desist Remove Ownership Remove Reporting
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

ACE Finally Seizes Pirate Streaming Domains After Years of Legal Action

TorrentFreak

Around six months ago reports suggested that the original Afdah may have gone down but given the number of other unrelated sites using its name to get traffic, some believed it may have been resurrected. On April 8, 2022, Afdah’s confirmed official domains – Afdah.com and Afdah.video – found themselves under new ownership.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

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

article thumbnail

Around the IP Blogs

The IPKat

COPYRIGHT Giovanni Maria Riccio and Fabiola Iraci Gambazza (E-Lex law firm) reported on the recent publication of the European Audiovisual Observatory entitled " Mapping report on national remedies against online piracy of sports content ", commissioned by the European Commission. disputes between domain names and trademarks).

Blogging 127
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

SpicyIP Weekly Review (October 21-October 27)

SpicyIP

The Defendants contended that the plaintiff had not established ownership, and in any case, the impugned display or exhibition of allegedly infringing material was incidental and transient in the cinematographic films of the defendant. This, they argued, is exempted under S. 52(1)(a)(iii) of the Copyright Act.

Trademark 103
article thumbnail

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

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.

Copyright 134
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