Copyright Law Updates - Commentaries Only - from Lawupdates.com

Dream Games: Illegal Use of Copyrighted Work Does Not Preclude Damages for Infringement

2009-06-30T17:33:01+00:00

Copyright Law || In a case of first impression, the 9th Circuit held that illegal use or operation of a copyrighted work by the copyright owner does not preclude an award of statutory or actual damages for infringement. In Dream Games of Arizona, Inc. v. PC Onsite, 561 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009), the federal appellate court rejected the infringer’s unclean hands defense based on a claim that the plaintiff used its copyright illegally in two states. The Court held that a work that contains legal content but which may be used for illegal purposes is still copyrightable.

AP v. All Headline News: Applying the “Hot News” Doctrine to the Internet

2009-05-20T18:02:06+00:00

Copyright Law || The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss most of the counts of the plaintiff’s complaint. In so holding, the court in Associated Press v. All Headline News Corp., ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2009 WL 382690, No. 08 Civ. 323 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2009), confirmed the current viability of the “hot news” misappropriation doctrine first set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1918, as well as that doctrine’s applicability to the Internet. Moreover, the District Court furthered a split in authority over the scope of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act’s prohibition against altering copyright management information.

Jacobsen v. Katzer: An Open Source License Is a Copyright License

2008-12-16T17:44:00+00:00

Copyright Law || In an opinion seen as a major development in open source jurisprudence, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Jacobsen v. Katzer, 535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008), open source licenses create conditions on the scope of the license, and failure to comply with those conditions may constitute copyright infringement.

Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings: Remote DVR Does Not Violate Copyright Protections Afforded to Television Program Copyright Holders

2008-09-18T19:51:01+00:00

Copyright Law || In Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings, 536 F.3d 121 (2nd Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit reversed a District Court’s ruling and determined that a remote-storage DVR service does not infringe on the reproduction and public performance rights of copyright holders. This significant holding, which will likely be referenced in a variety of future opinions, offers some interesting ramifications. It offers consumers an opening for increased flexibility in viewing choices, and offers developers of new technology a more generous interpretation of copyright law. Critics contend the ruling opens the door for new defenses for infringers and interprets copyright law in a fashion that impedes traditional copyright protection. Either way, the decision stands at the juxtaposition between existing copyright law and emerging technology.

Richlin v. MGM: Coauthor of Movie Treatment Does Not Automatically Own Movie Copyrights

2008-09-11T20:04:00+00:00

Copyright Law || In Richlin v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, 531 F.3d 962 (9th Cir. 2008), the heirs of one coauthor of the treatment that served as the basis of “The Pink Panther” series of movies asserted an interest in the motion picture copyright. The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment and agreed with the district court that the coauthor of a story treatment is not necessarily the coauthor of a subsequent movie based on that treatment, and therefore cannot necessarily claim a copyright interest in the movie. Accordingly, renewal of the copyright in the motion picture had no impact on the treatment coauthor’s interest.

Derek Andrew v. Poof Apparel: No statutory damages available when copyright infringement begins pre-registration

2008-08-7T17:06:00+00:00

Copyright Law || Under the Copyright Act, a registered copyright owner has the option to elect to recover either statutory damages or actual damages for infringement. Because actual damages are often difficult to prove, the option to elect statutory damages is extremely valuable. Section 412 of the Copyright Act, however, limits the option of statutory damages available to a copyright owner when infringement occurs prior to the registration of the copyright in question, even if the infringement also occurs after the registration. In Derek Andrew v. Poof Apparel, 528 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit Court joined the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuit in barring the option of statutory damages for ongoing infringement, that is, where infringement begins pre-registration and continues post-registration. The lesson for copyright owners is clear: get your copyright registered as soon as possible to maximize the types of recovery available to you against infringers.

Litecubes v. Northern Lights Products: Extending the Extraterritorial Reach of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

2008-05-13T16:45:00+00:00

Copyright Law || The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision in Litecubes LLC v. Northern Light Products clarified some critical elements of IP litigation jurisprudence. Litecubes LLC v. Northern Light Products, ___ F3d ___, 2008 WL 1848659 (C.A. Fed. (Mo.)) The Litecubes Court took the opportunity to clarify a few issues that have been the source of confusion in the IP arena, particularly regarding infringement claims with extraterritorial aspects. Specifically, the Litecubes Court addressed the fact that proof that the infringing activity takes place in the United States is proof of an element of infringement, but it is not relevant to the question of subject matter jurisdiction.

Bridgeport v. Combs: Putting Limits on Punitive Damage Awards in Copyright Action

2007-12-4T23:55:00+00:00

Copyright Law || It was once highly unusual for a successful copyright infringement plaintiff to win punitive damages – indeed, most courts have held that punitives were wholly unavailable for claims under the federal Copyright Act. But in the last decade, courts have been increasingly willing to allow punitive damages in actions based on both federal and state common law, and the awards are getting bigger and bigger. In Bridgeport v. Combs, 507 F.2d 470 (6th Cir. 2007), the 6th Circuit puts some parameters around these awards, explaining why a jury’s $3.5 million punitive damages award was unconstitutionally excessive, and offering future courts some guidance on assessing punitive damage awards

US v. ASCAP: Downloading Music from the Internet Does Not Constitute a Public Performance for Which a Performance Royalty Fee Is Due to ASCAP; Only A Reproduction Fee Applies.

2007-09-20T21:46:00+00:00

Copyright Law || In its decision in US v. ASCAP, 485 F. Supp. 2d 438 (SDNY 2007), the Southern District of New York clarified how the Copyright Law concept of “public performance” applies to the Internet concepts of downloading versus streaming. While on its face, the decision appears to establish a bright line rule, the Court did acknowledge the possibility of more questionable applications in the future.

In Amazon.com Case, Court Classifies Framed Display of Images in Web Search Engines as Fair Use

2007-07-26T18:10:00+00:00

Copyright Law || In this appeal brought by both the copyright owner Perfect 10, Inc. and defendants which included Internet search engine and Internet retailer (Google, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc.), the Court of Appeals ruled that the Internet search engine operator's act of framing in-line linked full-size images of copyrighted photographs on its website did not constitute "display" of copies of such photographs, within the meaning of Copyright Act, as would amount to copyright infringement. Although the storage and transmission of a thumbnail image version of a full-size copyrighted image is considered direct infringement of the exclusive right to display a work, the use falls under the fair use exception.

Ninth Circuit Clarifes Rule on Notice under the Safe Harbor Provision of Section 512 of the DMCA

2007-05-24T08:51:00+00:00

Copyright Law || The Ninth Circuit recently clarified the requirements for notice under the safe harbor provision of section 512 of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Though other courts have created relatively flexible standards, the Ninth Circuit ruled that compliance with all of the section’s clauses is required. This is good news for website providers, since it keeps copyright owners from shifting to providers their burden of investigating and remedying alleged infringement.