Sep 9 2017

Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center #stanford #online #school


Q: Thank you for updating the copyright overview on this site. What are the most important changes that you want us to know? A: Because the update reflects changes from 2014 through 2016 it includes a few decisions that readers may be familiar with such as the Google book scanning decision (Author’s Guild v. Hathitrust, [ ]

Bloggers and artists often ask, how much of a photo do you need to alter to avoid copyright infringement? Five changes? Fifteen? The Seventh Circuit addressed the issue in the Kienitz v Sconnie Nation case recently. According to the court, Sconnie Nation made t-shirts displaying an image of Madison Wisconsin mayor Paul Soglin, using [ ]

As part of its new draft Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices, Third Edition, we have guidance on registration for websites. The draft of the full compendium is over 1200 pages and covers publication, recordation, notice, deposits, along with other topics. Members of the public may make comments anytime before (or after) the Third Edition [ ]

ORPHAN WORKS is red hot again. After a number of failed legislative attempts and a couple of high profile court cases, its back to the drawing board, albeit a better defined drawing board. On the one hand, most everyone agrees that for true orphans, it would be great for us all to be able to [ ]

Plaintiff filed suit against various defendants in the film industry, alleging copyright and state law claims, including breach of implied-in-fact contract and declaratory relief. Plaintiff alleged that defendants used his screenplay idea to

Published on: June 6, 2017

Design Basics claims rights to about 2700 home designs and sued Lexington for copyright infringement, contending that Lexington built homes that infringed four Design Basics designs. The district court granted Lexington summary judgment, finding no evidence that Lexington ever had access to Design Basics home plans. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that Design Basics has no evidence of access and stating that no reasonable jury could find that Lexington s accused plans bear substantial similarities to any original material in Design Basics plans. The court noted that its owner acknowledged in his deposition that potential copyright infringement cases influence[d his] decision to become an owner of Design Basics. He testified that proceeds from litigation have become a principal revenue stream for Design Basics. Design Basics business model of trawling the Internet for intellectual property treasures is not unique. View Design Basics, LLC v. Lexington Homes, Inc. on Justia Law

Published on: May 24, 2017

Capacity manufactures Trailer Jockey semi-tractors. GFL became an authorized Capacity dealer under a 1995 franchise agreement. In 2013, Capacity notified GFL of its intent to terminate GFL s franchise, alleging GFL had misrepresented the employment status of a former GFL employee who went to work for Capacity s chief competitor and allowed the employee to continue accessing Capacity s online parts ordering system while working for the competitor. GFL filed a protest with the state New Motor Vehicle Board, alleging there was no good cause for the termination, as required by the Vehicle Code. An ALJ concluded Capacity had not established good cause because GFL had not violated the express terms of its franchise agreement. The Board agreed. The Sacramento County Superior Court directed the Board to set aside its decision. While that case was pending GFL filed this suit in the Alameda County Superior Court, which concluded that GFL did not have standing because section 11726 only authorizes actions by licensees of the DMV and GFL did not possess such a license. The court of appeal reversed. GFL is a member of the class protected by the subdivision of section 11713.3 on which its cause of action is based; its claim is not defeated by its status as non-licensee. View Guarantee Fork Lift, Inc. v. Capacity of Texas, Inc. on Justia Law

Published on: May 18, 2017

Registration of a copyright has not been made in accordance with 17 U.S.C. 411(a), until the Register of Copyrights registers the claim. Filing an application does not amount to registration. Fourth Estate filed suit against defendants, alle

Published on: April 25, 2017

SoundExchange, a nonprofit entity, charged with the responsibility of collecting royalties for performing artists and copyright owners of music, filed suit under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. against Muzak, a company that supplie

The United States Copyright Office is initiating the seventh triennial rulemaking proceeding under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), concerning possible temporary exemptions to the DMCA’s prohibition against circumvention of technological measures that control access to copyrighted wo

The Copyright Royalty Judges seek reply comments regarding a proposed new Copyright Royalty Board rule that would authorize the Judges to bar, either temporarily or permanently, certain individuals and entities from participating in proceedings before the Judges.

The United States Copyright Office is modernizing its registration practices to increase the efficiency of the registration process for both the Office and copyright owners. To further these efforts, this final rule adopts modifications to the Office’s procedures for supplementary registration. Spec

The Copyright Royalty Judges are amending regulations governing claims to royalty fees deposited with the Copyright Office under compulsory licenses to reflect implementation of a new electronic filing system and to consolidate cable and satellite rules.

The U.S. Copyright Office is issuing an interim rule that memorializes its special procedure for examining secure tests. The interim rule also includes a new workflow that will increase the efficiency of these examinations. Going forward, applicants must submit an online application, upload a redact

Antonelli Law: Attorneys in Chicago and Around the Country for BitTorrent Copyright Defense A lot of movie companies are suing parents and internet subscribers for copyright infringement. Most often, the company alleges that the internet was used with file sharing software called BitTorrent and some

This question is as old as the Internet itself. It is often remarkable just how people behave differently when they are online, often under the guise of anonymity. The Internet allows us to become different people, to behave in ways that we cannot often behave in everyday lives. This can be quite po

Back in 2007, I wrote an article entitle “Why I Embed My Images”. The premise was that, for most blogs, images made up the bulk of 3rd-party content. That makes image hotlinking a way to protect yourself against questionable copyright notices. It was a stupid, no-good, dumb idea. I’d already backed

The AmeriKat’s pondering, contemplativeface after a fevered sleepAfter a restless night’s sleep laced with vivid nightmares, including about how to correctly describe the Bundesgerichtshof for non-German readers, the AmeriKat has managed to ground herself with the always interesting debate

Written by CREDIT

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *