Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Viacom did not seek damages for any actions after Google put its Content ID filtering system in place in early 2008, and instead pursued declaratory relief on the ability of American copyright law in addressing Internet-enabled infringement. [8] The lawsuit was later merged with similar complaints being pursued by other copyright holders. [9]
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Circuit Court rulings are binding within a certain portion of it (the circuit in question); District Court rulings are not binding precedent, but may still be referred to by other courts.
Case Citation Year Vote Classification Subject Matter Opinions Statute Interpreted Summary; New York Times Co. v. Tasini: 533 U.S. 483: 2001: 7–2: Substantive: Collective works
New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001), is a leading decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of copyright in the contents of a newspaper database. It held that The New York Times , in licensing back issues of the newspaper for inclusion in electronic databases such as LexisNexis , could not license the works of ...
Meltwater's "Global Media Monitoring" product allowed its customers to search news articles by keyword. When a customer searched for information based on a string of keywords in the database, Meltwater reported back a list of articles from all over the web organized according to that query.
The Supreme Court held that 2 Live Crew's commercial parody may be a fair use within the meaning of § 107. Justice Souter began by describing the inherent tension created by the need to simultaneously protect copyrighted material and allow others to build upon it, quoting Lord Ellenborough: "While I shall think myself bound to secure every man in the enjoyment of his copyright, one must not ...
The ruling that the copyright was in force meant that the case was remanded to the district court and the Estate's lawsuit against CBS could proceed. CBS and the King Estate reached a settlement before proceeding further in the courts.
On May 1, 2014, Equals Three alleged that Jukin has filed at least 41 copyright infringement claims against them on YouTube, preventing them from earn advertising revenue from the affected episodes. Equals Three's inability to advertise allowed Jukin to place advertisements on the episodes, redirecting viewers to Jukin’s own YouTube channel.