(Podcast) The Briefing: Does This Court’s Ruling Put an End to Tattoo Copyright Cases?
The Briefing: Does This Court’s Ruling Put an End to Tattoo Copyright Cases?
The latest on: NFL Anti-Trust decision; Record Labels Sue Over Generative AI; Copyright Office clarifies Termination Rights, Royalties, Transfers, Disputes, and the MMA.
The Briefing: No Copyright Protection in Fitness Routines for Celebrity Trainer Tracy Anderson [PODCAST]
The Briefing: No Copyright Protection in Fitness Routines for Celebrity Trainer Tracy Anderson
The Briefing: Not Terminated - Cher Still Entitled to Her Share of Music Royalties
The Briefing: Not Terminated - Cher Still Entitled to Her Share of Music Royalties (Podcast)
SCOTUS and federal court rulings on TTAB decisions on granting trademarks and trademark renewals; Netflix settling an anticipated defamation case with a disclaimer and donation
The Briefing: Supreme Court Holds Copyright Damages Can Go Beyond 3 Years (Podcast)
The Briefing: Supreme Court Holds Copyright Damages Can Go Beyond 3 Years
SCOTUS applies the "discovery rule" in timely copyright infringement claim; Cher wins in Marital Settlement Agreement vs Copyright Grant Termination Notices; Student Athletes Win Revenue Share and NIL
Your AI Compliance Playbook: Case Studies in Business & Legal Risk Management
The Briefing: Another Court Gets It Right in Tattoo Copyright Dispute
The Briefing: Paramount Splashes Top Gun Maverick Copyright Lawsuit
The Briefing: Brandy Melville Doubles Down Against Redbubble (Podcast)
The Briefing: Brandy Melville Doubles Down Against Redbubble
AI Update: ELVIS Act Passes, SAG-AFTRA Agree with Record Labels. FTC Non-compete Ban Analyzed By Gordon Firemark and Tamera Bennett.
The Briefing: How “Knockoff” Furniture Landed Kim Kardashian in an IP Lawsuit
The Briefing: How “Knockoff” Furniture Landed Kim Kardashian in an IP Lawsuit (Podcast)
In Rimini Street v. Oracle USA, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that the “full costs” the Copyright Act authorizes federal district courts to award a party in copyright litigation means the costs specified in the...more
On March 4, the Supreme Court overturned a ruling that required Rimini Street to pay $12.8 million for Oracle’s litigation costs in a copyright infringement case. Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc. Many of the costs...more
On March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court issued two unanimous opinions that clarify when copyright owners can sue for infringement and what costs they can recover from infringers. In Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com, the Court...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two rulings last week on copyright law. In both cases, they acted to resolve conflicts between the Circuits, following closely to statutory language....more
In Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. Wall-Street.com, the U.S. Supreme Court tackled questions relating to copyright applications vs. copyright registrations, while in Rimini Street v. Oracle, the justices ruled on...more
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, March 4, 2019, held in a 9-0 decision that the term “full costs” in § 505 of the Copyright Act is limited by the general “costs” statute (28 U.S.C. §§ 1821 and 1920). For example, § 505 does...more
A unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court held that the word "full" was insufficient to justify awarding additional, nontaxable costs to the prevailing party. Under the American Rule, the prevailing party ordinarily must bear...more
On March 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two unanimous opinions interpreting provisions of the Copyright Act. In the first case, the Court decided that the Copyright Office must register a copyright before a copyright...more
Copyright litigants should take note of the pair of unanimous decisions handed down by the Supreme Court on Monday: Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, No. 17-571, 2019 LEXIS 1730 (Mar. 4, 2019), and...more
It has been a big week for copyright cases, and it’s only Wednesday. This Monday, the Supreme Court issued opinions on two copyright cases pending before it from the October 2018 term. ...more
Today, the Supreme Court issued three decisions: Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc., No. 17-1625: Section 505 of the Copyright Act permits courts to award “full costs” to a party in a civil action. Broadly interpreting...more
In two unanimous opinions, the Supreme Court on March 4, 2019, clarified two important issues under the Copyright Act—in both cases, based on a strict reading of the relevant text. ...more
Today, March 4, 2019 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Rimini Street v. Oracle USA that “full costs” described in 17 U.S.C. § 505 of the (Copyright Act) are limited to the six categories of taxable costs set...more
The Supreme Court was busy yesterday issuing opinions involving copyright law (see the TMCA’s post yesterday on Fourth Estate vs. Wallstreet.com concerning the need to obtain a copyright registration before initiating an...more
On March 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two unanimous decisions interpreting the Copyright Act. In Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC, 586 U.S. ___, the Court resolved a circuit split over when...more
On March 4, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., No. 17-1625, holding that a court’s discretion under section 505 of the Copyright Act to award “full costs” to the...more
On July 24, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision that can be an important tool to help copyright owners enforce their rights. It’s not unusual for copyright owners to believe that it’s just not worth going after some...more
Federal Circuit After Stryker/Halo - Why it matters: On June 13, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the consolidated cases of Stryker Corp. v. Zimmer, Inc. and Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. and, as...more
The case of Kirstaeng v. Wiley hit the headlines in 2013 when the Supreme Court held that importation and sale in the United States of books bought from the copyright owner in Thailand was not an infringement of copyright,...more
In Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., the Supreme Court clarified the test for awarding attorney’s fees when applying the Copyright Act’s discretionary fee-shifting provision, 17 U.S.C. § 505. The Court held that the...more
Supap Kirtsaeng realized he could buy cheaper, identical textbooks in Thailand and resell them for a profit in the U.S. John Wiley & Sons, the publisher of some of these textbooks, sued him for copyright infringement. ...more