Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Today the Supreme Court reportedly resolved not to hear the appeal on the Second Circuit’s Cablevision decision. This denial comes shortly after the Court has received the U.S. Government's brief recommending to reject the petition.

You don't see a lot of law comics, much less comics about copyright law. Does this clever cartoon from across the Web describe an instance of fair use? You be the judge.

Author: Allison Pedrazzi Helfrich

Following an investigation and notification attempts, clothing distributor Louis Vuitton Malletier filed a complaint against several websites that it believed were selling goods that infringed on Vuitton’s copyrights and trademarks, alleging contributory trademark infringement; vicarious trademark infringement; contributory copyright infringement; and vicarious copyright infringement. The court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the contributory copyright and trademark infringement claims. With respect to the contributory trademark infringement claim, the court held that the proper inquiry in this context was how much control the defendant had over the means of infringement.

Denise hosted her 20th episode (Ethically Cleansed) of her legally-minded program This Week In Law. I had a great time appearing on the program with my co-panelists Evan Brown, Ernie Svenson, and Ben Franske.

Author: Matt Kellogg

Google recently reached a settlement agreement with the authors and publishers who in 2005 sued the company for copyright infringement. As part of the arrangement, copyright owners will not only receive fees from Google for the use of digitized copies of their books in Google Book Search, they will also have the ability to choose how much—if any—of their works they wish to be displayed. The settlement provides for the creation of an independent organization to oversee its administration as well as special modes of access for public and university libraries.

The German Supreme Court (BGH) clarified last week that sampling does not infringe on copyright in the work from which samples were taken for the purpose of creating a new work. There is a catch hiding in the details, though.

A while ago I commented here on the Second Circuit’s decision in The Cartoon Network/Cable News Network v. CSC Holdings/Cablevision. It seemed to me like a decision that would leave a mark, one with implications reaching far beyond the particular dispute between the particular parties. Meanwhile, Cable News appealed to the Supreme Court. During the first week of November, a rainfall of amici curiea (friends of the court) briefs supporting the petition washed the threshold of the Court.

In the District of Minnesota, several recording companies including Capitol, Sony BMG, and Warner Bros. sued defendant Jammie Thomas for copyright infringement. The suit alleged that the defendant had illegally downloaded and distributed the plaintiffs' copyrighted sound recordings using peer-to-peer file-sharing software. The case went to trial, and the jury found for the plaintiffs, awarding $222,000 in damages. Following a careful review of the relevant statutes, legislative history, and case law, however, the court decided that a jury instruction that too broadly defined the concept of distribution had been erroneous and required a new trial. At the end of its opinion, the court called on Congress to standardize the range of peer-to-peer liability and damages.

EMI Records sought to enjoin Premise Media Corporation (Premise) from using a clip from John Lennon’s song, Imagine, in the documentary film, EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed. The court did not issue guidance on the exact amount of use needed to constitute copyright infringement. Instead, the court ruled that EMI was unlikely to win on the merits of the case because the fair use defense likely applied to Premise’s use of Imagine. The court denied the injunction since granting one would cause harm.

EMI Records v. Premise Media

The Second Circuit decided The Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings & Cablevision already two and a half weeks ago. This means light years in terms of blogging, but due to its importance I've decided to take the liberty and offer a late (and somewhat elaborate) entry discussing this ruling and some of its implications. The Cartoon Network is a very significant decision and I will not be surprised to see it surfacing in many future decisions and law review articles to come. Its central import is in pinching a big hole in the balloon often referred to as the “MAI v. Peak and its progeny.” I believe that the decision will have far-reaching ramifications on the development of temporary reproduction law in the future.