Ad
related to: most expensive copyright case
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Warner Bros. Records Inc., 780 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991), was a copyright case heard by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Songwriter Gilbert O'Sullivan sued rapper Biz Markie after Markie sampled O'Sullivan's song " Alone Again (Naturally) ".
Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary; New York Times Co. v. Tasini: 533 U.S. 483: 2001: 7–2: Substantive: Collective works
A case about secondary copyright infringement Kahle v. Gonzales: No. 04-17434: 9th Cir. 2007 Congress did not alter the "traditional contours of copyright protection" by permitting automatic extension of copyrights. Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150: N.D. Cal. 2008 Rights holders must consider fair use before issuing a takedown ...
Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U.S. 55 (1911), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held producing a motion picture based on a dramatic work can be copyright infringement. The producer of the motion picture is liable even they are not the exhibitor.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of a Miami music producer in a legal fight with Warner Music over a song by rapper Flo Rida, finding that there is no time ...
Clockwise from top left: Janet Jackson, Michael Jackson, Whitney Houston and Madonna.Four of the artists who have had the largest recording contracts up to one point. [a]The following is a list of the largest music deals in history signed by artists, including recording contracts and multi-rights agreements with over $50 million, as well catalog acquisitions with a reported sum of over $150 ...
The set went on to sell for over $8 million at a Sotheby’s auction in early 2024, smashing records for the most expensive sneakers ever sold in history. 2. Michael Jordan’s 1998 NBA Finals ...
Accolade, another video game case about reverse engineering. [27] The Hastings Communications and Entertainment Law Journal compared the Sega and Nintendo cases, as both courts acknowledged that reverse engineering qualified as fair use, but Atari had infringed copyright by using a "purloined" copy of Nintendo's source code. [13]