Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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
In July 2014, the plaintiff filed for a motion of summary judgment.However, on October 30, 2014, the court denied the motion. [9] Judge John A. Kronstadt, after reviewing competing musicologist reports, found "substantial similarity [between "Blurred Lines" and "Got to Give It Up"] to present a genuine issue of material fact", and that the "signature phrases, hooks, bass lines, keyboard chords ...
Introduced in the House as H.R. 2426 by Hakeem Jeffries (D–NY) on May 1, 2019; Committee consideration by United States House Committee on the Judiciary; Passed the House on October 22, 2019 ()
Art in advertisements is protected by copyright White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company: 209 U.S. 1: 1908 Reproduction of the sounds of musical instruments playing music for which copyright granted not a violation of the copyright. Bobbs-Merrill Co v. Straus: 210 U.S. 339: 1908 No license to use copyrighted material.
Case dismissed [116] 2022 "Get Ur Freak On" (2001) Missy Elliott "Safaera" (2020) Bad Bunny, Jowell & Randy and Ñengo Flow: 25% royalties [117] 2022 "Thank You" (2000) Dido "Mi Bebito Fiu Fiu" (2022) Tito Silva Music Sample used without permission, which led Silva to remove the song from streaming services after it went viral to avoid legal ...
Music plagiarism is the use or close imitation of another author's music while representing it as one's own original work. Plagiarism in music now occurs in two contexts—with a musical idea (that is, a melody or motif ) or sampling (taking a portion of one sound recording and reusing it in a different song).
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005), is a 2005 court case that was important in defining American copyright law for recorded music. The case centered on the 1990 N.W.A. track "100 Miles and Runnin'", which contains a manipulated two-second sample of the 1975 Funkadelic track "Get Off Your Ass and Jam".
Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. 140 (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case involving parody and trademark law. The case deals with a dog toy shaped similar to a Jack Daniel's whiskey bottle and label, but with parody elements, which Jack Daniel's asserts violates their trademark.