Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Hawkes & Son (London) Ltd v. Paramount Film Service Ltd [1934] 1 Ch 593 (the Colonel Bogey case - infringement of copyright occurs when "a substantial, a vital and an essential part" of a work is copied, per Lord Slesser) Jennings v. Stephens [1936] Ch. 469 ("performance in public" as infringement) Donahue v.
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 ...
On June 30, 2019, the American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift entered into a dispute with her former record label, Big Machine Records, its founder Scott Borchetta, and its new owner Scooter Braun, over the ownership of the masters of her first six studio albums. [note 1] Ultimately, Swift re-recorded several of the albums and released them ...
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.
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 ...
Metallica, et al. v. Napster, Inc. was a 2000 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case [1] that focused on copyright infringement, racketeering, and unlawful use of digital audio interface devices. Metallica vs. Napster, Inc. was the first case that involved an artist suing a peer-to-peer file sharing ("P2P") software ...