16
Jun/10

Reckless But Not Unreasonable Re Copyright Defenses


Defendant recording studio, Reckless Music, LLC, attempted to defend itself against copyright infringement by arguing that the studio engineer who copied plaintiff’s software without authorization, was an independent contractor. It was found liable on a vicarious liability theory but costs and fees were not awarded agaisnt it because its defense was not unreasonable, under Fogerty.
Decision Wave v Reckless Award of Fees



17
May/10

Our Firm Obtains Injunction On Behalf Of Music Publishers


My partner, Paul Fakler, successfully represented various music publishers including Warner/Chappell, Peermusic and Bug Music in obtaining a preliminary injunction in the CD Cal, enjoining several websites from displaying and distributing song lyrics without authorization.
Decision Prelim Peermusic v Live Universe Lyrics



14
May/10

Superman: The Never Ending Lawsuit


WSL: Biff! Bam! Pow! DC Comics Sues Lawyer Over Superman Rights

After months of discussions, DC Comics, a unit of Time Warner’s Warner Bros., filed a lawsuit today against Los Angeles-based attorney Marc Toberoff in an attempt to protect rights to its lucrative “Superman” property.
Warner Bros. filed the suit in federal court in Los Angeles after months of trying and failing to settle with heirs of the “Superman” creators, whom Toberoff represents.

Complaint Dc Toberoff



14
May/10

Text of Decision in Limewire Summary Judgement Finding 'Inducement'


Coverage here.
Decision Limewire



10
May/10

2d Circuit: An Album Is a Compilation and Is One Work


Ten songs but one album, one compilation, one statutory damage award.
Decision Bryant v Media Right



10
May/10

SDNY: Text of Decision in Int'l Swaps v Socratek: Can You Sell Copies of EDGAR Filings?


This is an interesting case. Plaintiff makes copyrighted blank forms that companies fill out when they make EDGAR filings with the SEC pursuant to the Exchange Act. Defendant downloads completed versions of the forms from EDGAR and sells them. Plaintiff sued for copyright infringement.
First, it seems that this is a case of first impression as to the interplay between the Exchange Act and the Copyright Act. After deciding that it is unlikely that the Exchange Act intended to gut all rights under the Copyright Act, just some of them, the Court goes on to deny a preliminary injunction. While Plaintiff made out a prima facie case of infringement, the Court notes that this is not going to be a slam-dunk case, but, importantly, Plaintiff was not able to make out a showing that it suffered irreparable harm from defendant selling completed copies of its form. Thus this would likely have turned out the same way post-Salinger.
Decision Intl Swaps v Socratek



5
May/10

Madame La Gimp v Singh Is Kinng


Plaintiff owns rights in Damon Runyon’s work entitled “Madame la Gimp.” The movies “Lady For A Day” and “Pocketful of Miracles” were based on it. Plaintiff alleges that the movie “Singh Is Kinng” infringes.
Complaint Singh is King



1
May/10

Text of Arista v Doe


Defendant “Doe 3,” whose identity is not known to plaintiffs Arista Records LLC et al., appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, Glenn T. Suddaby, Judge, rejecting Doe 3’s objections to the denial by United States Magistrate Judge Randolph F. Treece of Doe 3’s motion (originally brought by other anonymous defendants) to quash a subpoena served on his Internet service provider to obtain information sufficient to disclose his identity. The magistrate judge ruled that defendants’ qualified First Amendment right of anonymity was outweighed by, inter alia, plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants were downloading and/or distributing music over the Internet in violation of plaintiffs’ copyrights and plaintiffs’ need for the information in order to enforce their rights. On appeal, Doe 3 contends principally that the allegations in the Complaint are not sufficient to overcome his First Amendment right of anonymity; in addition, he contends that the reference of his motion to the magistrate judge and the district judge’s review of the magistrate judge’s decision were procedurally flawed. Finding no merit in Doe 3’s contentions, we affirm.

Arista v Doe

Filed under: Copyright


30
Apr/10

Salinger Remanded To Apply Ebay MercExchange Test


And there you are. 2d Circuit text of decision reversing the preliminary injunction in the Salinger case here.

After eBay, however, courts must not simply presume irreparable harm. See eBay, 547
U.S. at 393. Rather, plaintiffs must show that, on the facts of their case, the failure to issue an
injunction would actually cause irreparable harm. This is not to say that most copyright
plaintiffs who have shown a likelihood of success on the merits would not be irreparably harmed absent preliminary injunctive relief. As an empirical matter, that may well be the case, and the
historical tendency to issue preliminary injunctions readily in copyright cases may reflect just
that.



7
Apr/10

Text Of "Visual Artists' Complaint Against Google


Coverage here.
complaint asmp v google