Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Rogers v. Koons, 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cir. 1992), [1] is a leading U.S. court case on copyright, dealing with the fair use defense for parody. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that an artist copying a photograph could be liable for infringement when there was no clear need to imitate the photograph for parody.
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court copyright law case that established that a commercial parody can qualify as fair use. [1] This case established that the fact that money is made by a work does not make it impossible for fair use to apply; it is merely one of the components of a fair use ...
1) ASCAP members have a common and undivided interest in the right to license in association through the Society free of the state statute. 2) The lower court should have allowed ASCAP members the opportunity to price the cost of complying with the statute and the value of the copyrights affected by it.
Likewise, the noncommercial purpose of a use makes it more likely to be found a fair use, but it does not make it a fair use automatically. [16] For instance, in L.A. Times v. Free Republic , the court found that the noncommercial use of Los Angeles Times content by the Free Republic website was not fair use, since it allowed the public to ...
The court held that the Moscow on the Hudson poster was not a parody because it was not meant to satirize the Steinberg image itself, but merely satirized the same concept of the parochial New Yorker that was parodied by Steinberg's work. Because the copyrighted work was not an object of the parody, the appropriation of the image was not fair use.
At trial, the Southern District of New York found the use to be fair.. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.. Examining the four fair use factors, the court found that although Paramount's photographer drew heavily from Leibovitz' composition, in light of Paramount's parodic purpose and absence of market harm the use of the photograph was a fair use.
Oral arguments on the fair use matters were held in September 2013. On November 14, 2013, Judge Chin issued his ruling on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, and in effect dismissed the infringement lawsuit, holding that Google's use of the works was 'fair use' under copyright law. [52] [50] In his ruling, Judge Chin wrote:
[citation needed] The parody argument also failed, as the appeals court drew a distinction between creating a parody of modern society in general and a parody directed at a specific work, finding parody of a specific work, especially of a very obscure one, too weak to justify the fair use of the original.