Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir., 2007) was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit involving a copyright infringement claim against Amazon.com, Inc. and Google, Inc., by the magazine publisher Perfect 10, Inc.
A statement that you have identified material on a service that infringes your copyright (or infringes the copyright of a third party on whose behalf you are entitled to act); A description of the copyrighted work that you claim has been infringed, which should include the type of work (such as a book or a sound recording) and any relevant ...
An email from Amazon warning customers to be careful of a possible gift card scam went awry when customers reported that they worried the legitimate company message might have been, itself, a scam.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Napster's claims that it enabled legal sampling, space shifting, and permissive distribution (some artists had consented to the presence of their songs on the Napster service) were also rejected by the court. Furthermore, the court found that Napster could control the infringing behavior of the service's users, and therefore had a duty to do so ...
Four recording companies who owned the copyrights for the songs that Gonzalez downloaded filed a lawsuit accusing her of copyright infringement. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ruled in favor of the plaintiff record companies. The district court rejected Gonzalez's fair use defense against the infringement ...
Another common impersonation scam around this time involves fake purchase alerts for popular tech products. Knapp said that Amazon saw about a 13x spike in customer reports compared to three weeks ...
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.