Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The district court's ruling of infringement of a song's common law copyright, granting an injunction so that damages could be determined, was interlocutory. The appeal came too late, so the Court vacated the appeal.
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Circuit Court rulings are binding within a certain portion of it (the circuit in question); District Court rulings are not binding precedent, but may still be referred to by other courts.
Upon examining long historical practice in copyright infringement cases, it decided that damages in a copyright case have historically been tried as a court of law, and not as a court of equity. Thus, the defendant Feltner was entitled to a jury trial on the issue of the amount of statutory damages.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to clarify the time period for which plaintiffs can recover damages over copyright claims in a case involving a Miami music producer ...
In June 2023, attorneys for the defendants asked judge André Birotte Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss the case, arguing that the plaintiffs were ...
A federal judge decided that Nealy could recover damages only for infringement that happened during the three years before he filed the lawsuit, based on the U.S. statute of limitations for ...
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". [16]
The district court had ruled that the "law does not require knowledge of 'specific acts of infringement'," [1] and rejected Napster's assertion that, because it could not distinguish between infringing and non-infringing files, it did not have knowledge of copyright infringement by its users. The Ninth Circuit upheld this conclusion, holding ...