Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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Circuit Court rulings are binding within a certain portion of it (the circuit in question); District Court rulings are not binding precedent, but may still be referred to by other courts.
Rameshwari Photocopy Services and Others, colloquially known as the DU Photocopy Case, was an Indian copyright law court case in the Delhi High Court filed by academic publishers Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press and Taylor & Francis, against Rameshwari Photocopy Services and the University of Delhi, the former being a shop ...
This case involved the making of guides by the defendants of the text books published by the plaintiff. On the basis of the four factors mentioned in the US copyright statute and the decision in the instant case, the Indian Courts ruled in favor of the Defendants. The second case is of ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. New Delhi ...
OTTAWA (Reuters) -Five Canadian news media companies filed a legal action on Friday against ChatGPT owner OpenAI, accusing the artificial-intelligence company of regularly breaching copyright and ...
Penguin Books Ltd. v. India Book Distributors and Others, was a 1984 Delhi High Court court case. Penguin Books Ltd. of England brought a suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents, India Book Distributors of New Delhi, to restrain them from infringing Penguin's territorial license in 23 books, the subject matter of the suit.
Kala Vikas Motion Pictures Ltd (AIR 1987 Delhi 13) is a landmark case in the area of Indian copyright law. It is the first decision from the Indian higher judiciary that clarified the scope and ambit of moral rights under the Indian copyright law .
LaMacchia 871 F.Supp. 535 (1994) was a case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts which ruled that, under the copyright and cybercrime laws effective at the time, committing copyright infringement for non-commercial motives could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law.
Ownership and assignment of copyright for computer software in India was addressed by the Delhi High Court in a judgment [vague] on Pine Labs Private Limited vs Gemalto Terminals India Private Limited and others (FAO 635 of 2009 and FAO 636 of 2009).