Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
17 U.S.C. § 501, 17 U.S.C. §106. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th. Cir., 2001) was a landmark intellectual property case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that the defendant, peer-to-peer file sharing service Napster, could be held liable for contributory ...
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 ...
No. 15-56880 (9th Cir. July 11, 2018) is a United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit case concerning copyright infringement of sound recording. In August 2013, Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke and Clifford Joseph Harris (known by his stage name "T.I.") filed a complaint for declaratory relief against the members of Marvin Gaye 's ...
Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), also known as the " Betamax case ", is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but can instead be defended as fair use. [1][2] The ...
[40] He suggested that it could be balanced by adding provisions from the Fairness in Music Licensing Act (H.R. 789). Lloyd Doggett (Texas) called the 'Fairness in Music Licensing Act' the 'Music Theft Act' and claimed that it was a mechanism to "steal the intellectual property of thousands of small businesspeople who are song writers in this ...
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Circuit Court rulings are binding within a certain portion of it (the circuit in question); District Court rulings are not binding precedent, but may still be referred to by other courts.
35 U.S.C. § 289. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the general title of a series of patent infringement lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics in the United States Court system, regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers. Between them, the two companies have dominated the manufacturing of smartphones ...
A court of appeals decision regarding trademark registration affirming the Commissioner of Patent's decision, and directing the clerk to certify its opinion to the Commissioner, is not final and appealable to the Supreme Court. A. Leschen & Sons Rope Co. v. Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. 201 U.S. 166.