Published By Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center
Home
How much of a photo do you need to alter to avoid copyright infringement? Hint: Cheshire Cat
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 […]
Guidance on websites and copyright registration from the U.S. Copyright Office
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 […]
Who’s the Owner: A White Paper on “Improving Copyright Information Management: An Investigation of Options and Areas for Further Research”
The U.S. Copyright Office came to Stanford Law School yesterday to conduct a roundtable on Recordation Reengineering, The Stanford Law School Law and Policy Lab submitted comments and a thoughtful White Paper, and live tweeted the proceeding along with us (see @slspolicylab and @fairlyused). The Law and Policy Lab was represented at the roundtable by Peter Holm, third year law […]
Deadline: April 14th. Public invited to weigh in on orphan works – US Copyright Office
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 […]
CopyrightX lectures fully available to the public
The highly successful open course from Harvard prepared and delivered by Prof. William Fisher is in its Spring 2014 incarnation. It has a clear organization that lets you dive into a specific area that interests you like Technological Protection Measures. A full set of lectures and other resources available to the public online. I especially like the […]
More Featured
What's New
Copyright Case Opinion Summaries
Source: Justia Daily Opinion Summaries (feed)
Ali v. Final Call, Inc.
Published on:
In 1984, Jesus Muhammad‐Ali painted a portrait of the leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan. Ali later testified that his agreement with Farrakhan included only the portrait, not lithographs, and that Farrakhan never asked him to produce lithographs. In 2013, Ali sued Final Call, a newspaper that describes itself as the “propagation arm of the Nation of Islam,” for copyright infringement. Final Call admittedly had sold 115 copies of a lithograph of Ali’s Farrakhan portrait, but claimed it had authority to do so. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment in favor of Final Call. The law places the burden of proof on the party asserting license or authorization. Ali proved all he was required to prove, a prima facie case of infringement. A plaintiff is not required to prove that the defendant’s copying was unauthorized in order to state a prima facie case of copyright infringement. View “Ali v. Final Call, Inc.” on Justia Law
Urbont v. Sony Music Entm’t
Published on:
Plaintiff, a composer and music producer, filed a copyright suit against Sony, Razor Sharp Records, and Dennis Coles, a/k/a Ghostface Killah, to enforce plaintiff’s claimed ownership rights in the “Iron Man” theme song. The district court determined that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that Marvel was, in fact, the copyright owner. Therefore, the district court dismissed plaintiff’s New York common law claims for copyright infringement, unfair competition, and misappropriation on the basis that those claims were preempted by the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq. The court held that, although the district court properly determined that defendants had standing to raise a “work for hire” defense to plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim, the district court erred in concluding that plaintiff failed to raise issues of material fact with respect to his ownership of the copyright; the district court properly dismissed plaintiff’s state law claims as preempted by the Copyright Act; the court vacated the district court’s summary judgment ruling with respect to plaintiff’s Copyright Act claim and remanded for further proceedings; and the court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s state law claims. View “Urbont v. Sony Music Entm’t” on Justia Law
Bell v. Taylor
Published on:
Bell sued several defendants for copyright infringement, alleging that they impermissibly displayed a photo of the Indianapolis skyline that belongs to Bell on websites promoting their respective businesses. With respect to one defendant, Bell misidentified the photograph. As for the other defendants, the court concluded that although Bell had established ownership of the photo, he had failed to prove damages: Bell had not demonstrated the photo’s fair market value, nor had he shown that defendants profited from their use of his photo. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on both damages and injunctive and declaratory relief. Bell filed a second copyright infringement lawsuit against some of the defendants in the same court. The district court dismissed the second case based on res judicata. The Seventh Circuit affirmed both decisions, noting that the photographs were removed from the websites long ago and that the websites no longer exist. The second lawsuit involved a common core of operative facts. View “Bell v. Taylor” on Justia Law
Flo & Eddie v. Sirius SM Radio
Published on:
Flo & Eddie, a California corporation, filed suit against Sirius, a satellite and internet radio provider, claiming that Sirius violated Flo & Eddie’s rights as owner of sound recordings of musical performances that were fixed before February 15, 1972. Because the issues in this case have not been addressed by the Supreme Court of Florida, the court certified the following questions to that state court: 1. Whether Florida recognizes common law copyright in sound recordings and, if so, whether that copyright includes the exclusive right of reproduction and/or the exclusive right of public performance? 2. To the extent that Florida recognizes common law copyright in sound recordings, whether the sale and distribution of phonorecords to the public or the public performance thereof constitutes a “publication” for the purpose of divesting the common law copyright protections in sound recordings embedded in the phonorecord and, if so whether the divestment terminates either or both of the exclusive right of public performance and the exclusive right of reproduction? 3. To the extent that Florida recognizes a common law copyright including a right of exclusive reproduction in sound recordings, whether Sirius’s back-up or buffer copies infringe Flo & Eddie’s common law copyright exclusive right of reproduction? 4. To the extent that Florida does not recognize a common law copyright in sound recordings, or to the extent that such a copyright was terminated by publication, whether Flo & Eddie nevertheless has a cause of action for common law unfair competition/misappropriation, common law conversion, or statutory civil theft under FLA. STAT. 772.11 and FLA. STAT. 812.014? View “Flo & Eddie v. Sirius SM Radio” on Justia Law
Flo & Eddie v. Sirius SM Radio
Published on:
Flo & Eddie, a California corporation, filed suit against Sirius, a satellite and internet radio provider, claiming that Sirius violated Flo & Eddie’s rights as owner of sound recordings of musical performances that were fixed before February 15, 1972. Because the issues in this case have not been addressed by the Supreme Court of Florida, the court certified the following questions to that state court: 1. Whether Florida recognizes common law copyright in sound recordings and, if so, whether that copyright includes the exclusive right of reproduction and/or the exclusive right of public performance? 2. To the extent that Florida recognizes common law copyright in sound recordings, whether the sale and distribution of phonorecords to the public or the public performance thereof constitutes a “publication” for the purpose of divesting the common law copyright protections in sound recordings embedded in the phonorecord and, if so whether the divestment terminates either or both of the exclusive right of public performance and the exclusive right of reproduction? 3. To the extent that Florida recognizes a common law copyright including a right of exclusive reproduction in sound recordings, whether Sirius’s back-up or buffer copies infringe Flo & Eddie’s common law copyright exclusive right of reproduction? 4. To the extent that Florida does not recognize a common law copyright in sound recordings, or to the extent that such a copyright was terminated by publication, whether Flo & Eddie nevertheless has a cause of action for common law unfair competition/misappropriation, common law conversion, or statutory civil theft under FLA. STAT. 772.11 and FLA. STAT. 812.014? View “Flo & Eddie v. Sirius SM Radio” on Justia Law
Copyright Case Dockets
Source: Justia Dockets and Filings (feed)
Unicolors, Inc. v. B. Boston & Associates, Inc. et al
Filed: August 10, 2016 as 2:2016cv05970
Defendant: B. Boston & Associates, Inc., Ross Stores Inc., Tovia, Inc.
Plaintiff: Unicolors, Inc.
Court: Ninth Circuit › California › California Central District Court
Type: Intellectual Property › Copyright
Unicolors, Inc. v. The Zenobia, Inc et al
Filed: August 10, 2016 as 2:2016cv05978
Defendant: 618 Main Clothing Corporation, Century 21 Department Stores LLC, Fashion Trend, Inc. and others
Plaintiff: Unicolors, Inc.
Court: Ninth Circuit › California › California Central District Court
Type: Intellectual Property › Copyright
United Fabrics International, Inc. v. Bizz, Inc.
Filed: August 10, 2016 as 2:2016cv05979
Defendant: Bizz, Inc.
Plaintiff: United Fabrics International, Inc.
Court: Ninth Circuit › California › California Central District Court
Type: Intellectual Property › Copyright
Unicolors, Inc. v. Swoon Fashion et al
Filed: August 10, 2016 as 2:2016cv05973
Defendant: M&P Central, Inc., Styles for Less, Inc., Swoon Fashion
Plaintiff: Unicolors, Inc.
Court: Ninth Circuit › California › California Central District Court
Type: Intellectual Property › Copyright
Unicolors, Inc. v. YN Apparel, Inc. et al
Filed: August 10, 2016 as 2:2016cv05977
Defendant: Ross Stores, Inc., YN Apparel, Inc.
Plaintiff: Unicolors, Inc.
Court: Ninth Circuit › California › California Central District Court