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]
He said that mandating video-sharing sites to proactively police every uploaded video "would contravene the structure and operation of the D.M.C.A." [8] Stanton also noted that YouTube had successfully enacted a mass take-down notice issued by Viacom in 2007, indicating that this was a viable process for addressing infringement claims.
Six weeks later, YouTube reposted the video. In July 2007, Lenz sued Universal for misrepresentation under the DMCA, and sought a declaration from the court that her use of the copyrighted song was non-infringing. [3] In September 2007, Prince stated in the media that he intended to "reclaim his art on the internet" and to challenge Lenz's suit ...
The lawsuit claims that Ontel and Telebrands infringed on “Flippy” when they launched Pillow Pad via a Facebook page created in February 2019 to promote the product.
The tech companies claim their platforms are merely message boards and are therefore protected by the Communications Decency Act.
Honey, a popular browser extension owned by PayPal, is the target of one YouTuber's investigation that was widely shared over the weekend—over 6 million views in just two days. The 23-minute ...
Attorney Brett Gibbs claimed to have—but never produced—an original notarized signature of "Alan Cooper, Manager of Ingenuity 13 LLC." [58] [59]On May 6, 2013, Judge Wright sanctioned Prenda Law and its "principals" Steele, Hansmeier, and Duffy, along with Gibbs, whom he termed "attorneys with shattered law practices", $81,319.72 (of which half was punitive) [4]: p.10 for "brazen ...
The paper's competitor, the Las Vegas Sun, covered all 107 of the lawsuits as of September 1, 2010, [13] describing it as the first known instance of a copyright troll buying the rights to a news story based on finding that its copyright had been infringed. [11]