Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2nd Cir., 2012), was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding liability for copyright infringement committed by the users of an online video hosting platform. [1]
YouTube copyright issues
Copyright infringement
Entick v Carrington (1765) 95 ER 807 (authorities have no power which is not explicitly given to them by law; repercussions far beyond exclusive rights) Millar v. Taylor (1769) 4 Burr 2303; 98 ER 201 (copyright is perpetual) Donaldson v. Beckett (1774) 4 Burr 2408; 98 ER 257 (copyright is not perpetual) Dick v.
1) A copyright is held by default with the person whose name it was taken out in, regardless of potential conflicts with state law. 2) If a work contains a mixture of original and copyright infringing material, but it is so intermingled as to be inseparable, then the copyright holder may take all profits from the work.
The rare legal dispute over copyright infringement, fair use of an artist’s work and the promotional value of fan videos online was triggered by a response from the YouTuber who posted the videos.
Another prominent case involves a group of artists who sued several tech companies known for their text-to-image models for copyright infringement. The plaintiffs allege that the generative AI ...
YouTube's own practice is to issue a "YouTube copyright strike" on the user accused of copyright infringement. [1] When a YouTube user gets hit with a copyright strike, they are required to watch a warning video about the rules of copyright and take trivia questions about the danger of copyright. [2] A copyright strike will expire after 90 days.