Copyright

Subscribe to Copyright via RSS

In an opinion Thursday, Judge Stanton granted YouTube summary judgment in a high-stakes copyright infringement case in which the plaintiff, Viacom, claims YouTube unlawfully allows Viacom’s copyrighted videos to be posted online. Judge Stanton’s had earlier granted summary judgment to YouTube because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s “safe harbor” provision, which protects websites from infringement claims based on certain user-posted material, so long as the sites lack actual knowledge and have mechanisms to promptly remove the material after being notified by the copyright holder.  The Second Circuit reversed and remanded for Judge Stanton to consider (among other things) whether YouTube had actual knowledge of the videos at issue.  In Thursday’s opinion, Judge Stanton again ruled for YouTube.  He rejected Viacom’s argument that YouTube should be bear the burden of proving it lacked actual knowledge of each of the over 63,000 videos in dispute:
Continue Reading On Remand, Judge Stanton Again Rejects Copyright Claims Against YouTube

In an opinion issued today, a divided panel of the Second Circuit affirmed Judge Nathan’s denial of the motion for a preliminary injunction by a group of television networks against internet television provider Aereo. As we have covered in several prior posts, the networks are seeking to prevent what they claim is unauthorized infringing use of their broadcast television programming over the internet. Judge Nathan denied the motion, citing the Second Circuit’s prior opinion in Cartoon Network LP, LLLP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008). The Second Circuit affirmed Judge Nathan’s ruling, holding that she “correctly concluded that Aereo’s system is not materially distinguishable from the system upheld in Cartoon Network.” In a lengthy dissent, Judge Chin disagreed, calling Aereo’s technology a “sham” to avoid the copyright laws.
Continue Reading Second Circuit Affirms Judge Nathan’s Denial of Television Networks’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Emma Thompson and her husband, Greg Wise, wrote a screenplay about the love triangle between John Ruskin – an influential art critic of the Victorian era – his teenage bride,  Euphemia (“Effie”)  Gray, and John Everett Millais, Ruskin’s protégé. That screenplay has since been turned into a movie – Effie – starring Thompson, Wise, Dakota Fanning, Tom Sturridge, and Robbie Coltrane, due to be released this year.  On Wednesday, Judge Griesa granted Effie Film’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in an action it had filed against Gregory Murphy for a declaration that the “Effie” screenplay does not infringe upon Mr. Murphy’s copyright in “The Countess” – a play and screenplay he authored based upon the same historical events.
Continue Reading Judge Griesa Declares Forthcoming Emma Thompson Film “Effie” Not Infringing of Play Based on Same Historical Events

This evening, Judge Baer dismissed one of three actions alleging that Google’s mass digitization of written works owned by certain Universities – which are then contributed to the HathiTrust Digital Library and made available – in snippets – via Google Books, is violative of the Copyright Act. Judge Baer concluded that the Mass Digitization Project and the HathiTrust Digital Library are protected under fair use, and granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment. Judge Baer observed that the project’s full-text search capability “allows scholars to identify relevant works far more efficiently. In addition, the program helps Defendants preserve their collections in the face of normal deterioration during circulation, natural disasters, or other catastrophes that decimate library collections, as well as loss due to theft or misplacement.” He concluded “I cannot imagine a definition of fair use that. . . would require that I terminate this invaluable contribution to the progress of science and cultivation of the arts . . . .”
Continue Reading Judge Baer: Google’s Mass Digitization of Copyrighted Works is Fair Use

In the latest in a long line of SDNY opinions on copyright infringement cases brought against anonymous users of the BitTorrent file-sharing service, Judge Baer dismissed without prejudice the suits against all but the first identified John Doe defendant in the case on the grounds that they were improperly joined. Judge Baer lamented that the same “swarm” technology that has allowed for joinder of these defendants in many cases has created a plague on the federal courts: “It is this swarm that Plaintiffs have relied on in grouping Doe defendants together in a common suit. Ironically, there are swarms on both sides, for copyright locusts have descended on the federal courts, exacting low-cost settlements from embarrassed John Does and then moving on to the next District.” Judge Baer lists 30 separate BitTorrent actions against anonymous defendants that have been brought in federal court, which he describes as a “but a sample,” turning the federal courts into “cogs in a plaintiff’s copyright-enforcement business model.”
Continue Reading Judge Baer Severs John Doe Defendants in Latest BitTorrent Copyright Case