Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Section 512(m) notes that OSPs retain the protections of parts (a) through (d) even if they don't monitor their service looking for infringing activity, as long as they comply Section 512(i)'s general requirements relating to the institution of account termination policies for infringers and accommodation of copy protection systems. Furthermore ...
In addition to the two general requirements that online service providers comply with standard technical measures and remove repeat infringers, section 512(c) also requires that the online service providers: 1) do not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) are not aware of the presence of infringing ...
In addition to the safe harbors and exemptions the statute explicitly provides, 17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1) requires that the Librarian of Congress issue exemptions from the prohibition against circumvention of access-control technology.
In July 2007, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA, and sought a declaration from the court that her use of the copyrighted song was non-infringing. [ 3 ] In September 2007, Prince stated in the media that he intended to "reclaim his art on the internet" and to challenge Lenz's suit. [ 4 ]
The only affirmative cause of action in 17 U.S.C. § 512 is 512(f) which permits a claim for knowingly materially misrepresenting that a work is infringing. [2] However, the defendants never made any determination of whether plaintiffs' videos constituted fair use, let alone knowingly made representations to the plaintiff that it was infringing.
The drum machine beat was further popularized by Shabba Ranks’ 1990 “Dem Bow,” a staple in the reggae dancehall scene. Brown and Johnson co-own the “Dem Bow'' composition along with Ranks.
According to the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC), which was the position at the White House created by the PRO-IP Act through 15 U.S.C. § 8111 to coordinate U.S. governmental agencies that carry out the law's purpose, [4] several policy rationales informed intellectual property enforcement, including: [2] [5]
Online Service Provider "Safe Harbor": Section 512 ("OCILLA", passed as part of the DMCA in 1998) provides a contingent "safe harbor" for online service providers from secondary liability for their users' copy infringements. US copyright law does not allow works created by animals to be copyrighted. [67] [68] [69]