Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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Circuit Court rulings are binding within a certain portion of it (the circuit in question); District Court rulings are not binding precedent, but may still be referred to by other courts.
[18] [19] Seigenthaler called Wikipedia a "flawed and irresponsible research tool" and criticized the Communications Decency Act's protection of Wikipedia, which is why the case was dropped. [18] [20] In 2007, three French nationals sued the Wikimedia Foundation when an article on Wikipedia described them as gay activists.
A news agency called Asian News International (ANI) sued the Wikimedia Foundation for defamation, based on things written in its article on the English Wikipedia. Then other Wikipedia editors made an article about that lawsuit, and the Delhi High Court ordered Wikipedia to delete that article in its entirety.
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.
On June 1, 2020, Hachette Book Group and other publishers, including Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, and Wiley, filed a lawsuit against the Internet Archive for the National Emergency Library. [ 9 ] [ 10 ] The plaintiffs argued that the practice of CDL was illegal and not protected by the doctrine of fair use. [ 11 ]
Upon announcing the new service, Cablevision was sued for direct copyright infringement by a consortium of television and movie copyright holders including Turner Broadcasting and its subsidiaries Cartoon Network and CNN; Twentieth Century Fox; NBCUniversal subsidiaries NBC and Universal Studios; Paramount Pictures; Disney and its subsidiary ...
The rationale was that viewing of copyright works was not, and had never been, illegal in either the UK or European law, [7]: item 36 and Article 5.1 of the European Directive Directive 2001/29/EC (which covers "temporary copies" [7]: item 9, 11 ) permitted automated copying of a temporary nature for a lawful purpose. As mere viewing by ...
Universal Music Corp., 801 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2015), is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, holding that copyright owners must consider fair use defenses and good faith activities by alleged copyright infringers before issuing takedown notices for content posted on the Internet.