Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software can be liable for copyright infringement if there are "affirmative steps taken to foster infringement". Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. 550 U.S. 437
Distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software can be liable for copyright infringement if there are "affirmative steps taken to foster infringement". Mannion v. Coors Brewing Co. 377 F.Supp.2d 444: S.D.N.Y. 2005 Originality in rendition, timing and/or creation of the subject are grounds for copyrightability in a photograph. Blanch v. Koons ...
Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. 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)".
Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992), [1] is a leading U.S. court case on copyright, dealing with the fair use defense for parody. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that an artist copying a photograph could be liable for infringement when there was no clear need to imitate the photograph for parody.
On March 10, 2015, the jury unanimously found Thicke and Williams liable for copyright infringement. It awarded a sum of $7.3 million as damages for the infringement to Gaye's family. The amount was reduced by the District Court to $5.3 million, along with 50 percent royalties on future songwriter and publishing revenue of "Blurred Lines". [16]
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court copyright law case that established that a commercial parody can qualify as fair use. [1] This case established that the fact that money is made by a work does not make it impossible for fair use to apply; it is merely one of the components of a fair use ...
The court states the test for copyright infringement as copying an item that is the subject of a valid copyright, making no mention of improper appropriation of protectable elements, or in fact any distinction between protectable and unprotectable elements of Steinberg's drawing. This is in contrast to the 2nd Circuit's prior opinion in Nichols v.
Case history; Prior actions: Letter of Request from Nintendo to Blockbuster, requesting cessation of manual reproduction. Court membership; Judge sitting: Alfred M. Wolin: Case opinions; The photocopying of video game manuals was an infringement of copyright, but the rental of video games was completely legal.