Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[8] [9] [10] Viacom, demanding $1 billion in damages, said that it had found more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of its material on YouTube that had been viewed "an astounding 1.5 billion times". YouTube responded by stating that it "goes far beyond its legal obligations in assisting content owners to protect their works". [11]
In March 2007, [5] Viacom filed a US $1 billion lawsuit against Google and YouTube alleging that the site had engaged in "brazen" copyright infringement by allowing users to upload and view copyrighted material owned by Viacom. [6]
Note: if no court name is given, according to convention, the case is from the Supreme Court of the United States.Supreme Court rulings are binding precedent across the United States; Circuit Court rulings are binding within a certain portion of it (the circuit in question); District Court rulings are not binding precedent, but may still be referred to by other courts.
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.
Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015), is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that copyright owners must consider fair use defenses and good faith activities by alleged copyright infringers before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the Internet.
2020: Turkish Erdoğan administration has been using state-owned television channel TRT's status as a large rightsholder, which gives it access to YouTube's ContentID filtering system, to silence critical reporting on the government issuing false copyright claims to the Content ID system.
A news agency called Asian News International (ANI) sued the Wikimedia Foundation for defamation, based on things written in its article on the English Wikipedia. Then other Wikipedia editors made an article about that lawsuit, and the Delhi High Court ordered Wikipedia to delete that article in its entirety.
The rationale was that viewing of copyright works was not, and had never been, illegal in either the UK or European law, [7]: item 36 and Article 5.1 of the European Directive Directive 2001/29/EC (which covers "temporary copies" [7]: item 9, 11 ) permitted automated copying of a temporary nature for a lawful purpose. As mere viewing by ...