Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Case dismissed [117] 2022 "Get Ur Freak On" (2001) Missy Elliott "Safaera" (2020) Bad Bunny, Jowell & Randy and Ñengo Flow: 25% royalties [118] 2022 "Thank You" (2000) Dido "Mi Bebito Fiu Fiu" (2022) Tito Silva Music Sample used without permission, which led Silva to remove the song from streaming services after it went viral to avoid legal ...
That the Defendants had tried to secure a license from plaintiff prior to sampling its copyrighted song helped establish that their copyright infringement was knowing and intentional and that plaintiff was the valid copyright holder. Preliminary injunction granted. Court membership; Judge sitting: Kevin Thomas Duffy: Laws applied
Distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software can be liable for copyright infringement if there are "affirmative steps taken to foster infringement". Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. 550 U.S. 437
Art in advertisements is protected by copyright White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company: 209 U.S. 1: 1908 Reproduction of the sounds of musical instruments playing music for which copyright granted not a violation of the copyright. Bobbs-Merrill Co v. Straus: 210 U.S. 339: 1908 No license to use copyrighted material.
On March 10, 2015, the jury unanimously found Thicke and Williams liable for copyright infringement. It awarded a sum of $7.3 million as damages for the infringement to Gaye's family. The amount was reduced by the District Court to $5.3 million, along with 50 percent royalties on future songwriter and publishing revenue of "Blurred Lines".
Major record labels Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Records sued artificial intelligence companies Suno and Udio on Monday, accusing them of committing mass copyright infringement by ...
Napster's ease of use compared to other peer-to-peer services quickly made it a popular service for music enthusiasts to find and download digital song files for free. [1] The legacy record industry immediately took action against what it believed to be unauthorized copying of its copyrighted musical works within the Napster service.
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 ...