Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Viacom International, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 676 F.3d 19 (2nd Cir., 2012), was a United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision regarding liability for copyright infringement committed by the users of an online video hosting platform. [1]
In January 2020, Jukin Media has been criticized for extorting YouTubers MxR and Potastic Panda, asking $6,000 for copyright infringement. In this case, one of the pair's reaction videos saw them watch four clips recently bought by Jukin Media, which has promptly issued them with an invoice for four cases of infringing on its copyright.
YouTube removed the video, and notified Lenz of the removal and the infringement accusation. Lenz in turn sent YouTube a counter-notification, claiming fair use and requesting that the video be reposted. Six weeks later, YouTube reposted the video.
The rare legal dispute over copyright infringement, fair use of an artist’s work and the promotional value of fan videos online was triggered by a response from the YouTuber who posted the videos.
Google on Thursday defeated a trademark lawsuit brought by a British short film company over YouTube's short video platform Shorts, with London's High Court ruling there was no risk of confusion ...
A new Google scan aimed at combating copyright violations on YouTube is causing major headaches for video game vloggers and game companies. Companies including Activision Blizzard and Ubisoft have ...
Warner/Chappell Music Inc. et al. v. Fullscreen Inc. et al. (13-cv-05472 [1]) was a case against multi-channel network Fullscreen, filed by the National Music Publishers Association on behalf of Warner/Chappell Music and 15 other music publishers, [2] which alleged that Fullscreen illegally profited from unlicensed cover videos on YouTube without paying any royalties to the rightful publishers ...
The court said that in the case of copyright infringement, the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law – certain exclusive rights – is invaded, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights ...