A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has confirmed that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides a “safe harbor” for service providers who expeditiously take down allegedly infringing content when they receive written notice from copyright owners.
YouTube ruling affirms DMCA safe harbor protection for user-generated content websites
Popular related articles
-
Circular beach towel's trademark is invalid (Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)
In the late 1980s, Clemens Franek sought and received trademark registration status for his "radical" round beach towel.
-
Western District of New York upholds non-compete and grants TRO (Seyfarth Shaw LLP)
Plaintiff IDG USA, LLC (“IDG”), a Georgia company with its principal place of business in North Carolina, commenced an action against a former employee, Kevin J. Schupp (“Schupp”), a New York resident, alleging breaches of a Non-Compete Agreement, breach of a Confidentiality Agreement, unfair competition, and theft of trade secrets.
-
Shutting down corporate pick-pockets (Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP)
A 10-year employee accounting manager systematically transfers amounts via ACH to her personal checking account.
-
Employer wins “cat's paw” case (Foley & Lardner LLP)
On August 11, 2010, a federal court rejected a terminated employee's "cat's paw" argument.
-
Massachusetts personnel records statute amended to require employers to notify employees when negative information is placed in personnel records (Goodwin Procter LLP)
Massachusetts recently enacted an economic development statute which contains an important amendment to the Massachusetts Personnel Records Statute, G.L. c. 149, § 52C.
-
Online ad network sued over tracking using flash cookies (Hunton & Williams LLP)
On August 18, 2010, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging that Specific Media, Inc. violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, as well as state privacy and computer security laws, by failing to provide adequate notice regarding its online tracking practices.
-
There's no 5th Amendment in Second Life (Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP)
In the real world (at least in the US), the 5th Amendment to the Constitution states, "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
-
Court of Justice rules on another AdWords case (Marks & Clerk)
In July, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on the case Protakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV v Primakabin BV in the Netherlands, which involved use of registered trade marks as sponsored keywords.
-
Telecom privacy news (Arent Fox LLP)
A South Carolina court of appeals has held that a defendant's unauthorized access of e-mails on a Yahoo! account server violated the Stored Communications Act (SCA).
-
Overlooked elements of the Verizon-Google net neutrality proposal (Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)
Earlier this month, Verizon and Google announced an agreement on the vexing issue of net neutrality.
-
Circular beach towel's trademark is invalid (Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)
In the late 1980s, Clemens Franek sought and received trademark registration status for his "radical" round beach towel.
-
Specsavers v ASDA - a real eye-opener? (Herbert Smith LLP)
The High Court has held that one of ASDA's marketing straplines used to promote its in-store optician took unfair advantage of Specsavers' Community Trade Marks (CTM) under Article 9(1)(c) of the CTM Regulation, but rejected its infringement claims made under Article 9(1)(b) and for passing-off.
-
Is your trade mark distinctive or just descriptive? (Clayton Utz)
Exotic Limo Pty Ltd applied to register ExoticLimo (stylised) for car hire and chauffeuring services.
-
Custom furniture: innovative plan or illegal imitation? (Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice PLLC)
Today's Wall Street Journal, San Francisco Bay Area edition, includes a very interesting article on start up furniture companies whose business model includes reproducing popular furniture designs on a custom basis.
-
Court of Justice rules on another AdWords case (Marks & Clerk)
In July, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on the case Protakabin Ltd and Portakabin BV v Primakabin BV in the Netherlands, which involved use of registered trade marks as sponsored keywords.
-
Misrepresentations in advertising material for the proposed sale of land: some lessons from a recent case (Norton Rose)
A recent NSW case has shed useful light on the judicial treatment of misrepresentations in advertising of properties for sale.
-
Circular beach towel's trademark is invalid (Kelley Drye & Warren LLP)
In the late 1980s, Clemens Franek sought and received trademark registration status for his "radical" round beach towel.
-
Boundary dispute over strip of driveway ends up in court (DMH Stallard LLP)
An argument over a narrow strip of land has left a mother and son facing massive costs after their case was heard in the Court of Appeal recently.
-
Western District of New York upholds non-compete and grants TRO (Seyfarth Shaw LLP)
Plaintiff IDG USA, LLC (“IDG”), a Georgia company with its principal place of business in North Carolina, commenced an action against a former employee, Kevin J. Schupp (“Schupp”), a New York resident, alleging breaches of a Non-Compete Agreement, breach of a Confidentiality Agreement, unfair competition, and theft of trade secrets.
-
The Court of Appeal provides guidance on the rules on equitable set-off; Geldof Metaalconstructie NV v Simon Carves Ltd (2010) (Mills & Reeve LLP)
Set-off effectively allows one person to deduct from sums he owes to another, amounts that the other person owes to him.
-
Specsavers v ASDA - a real eye-opener? (Herbert Smith LLP)
The High Court has held that one of ASDA's marketing straplines used to promote its in-store optician took unfair advantage of Specsavers' Community Trade Marks (CTM) under Article 9(1)(c) of the CTM Regulation, but rejected its infringement claims made under Article 9(1)(b) and for passing-off.
-
Beach Boys vs. “California Gurls” (Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard LLP)
Singer Katy Perry, of "I kissed a girl, and I liked it" fame, has been threatened with a lawsuit over her use of the Beach Boys' timeless line, "I wish they all could be California Girls," in her hit song "California Gurls."
-
Entertainment industry now targets network operators (NautaDutilh)
In its European filesharing wars, the entertainment industry now targets network operators.
-
Maker of game-pirating devices caught red-handed (Minter Ellison)
The England and Wales High Court of Justice has given summary judgment in a case concerning copyright infringement and the avoidance of copyright-protection devices.
-
North Carolina Superior Court holds state shield law protects identities of newspaper website commenters (Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard LLP)
On July 27, 2010, NC Superior Court Judge Calvin E Murphy ruled from the bench that North Carolina’s shield law, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8-53.11, protects a newspaper from the compelled disclosure during judicial proceedings of the identities of anonymous commenters to the newspaper’s website.
-
Is CBP “management by account” becoming a reality? (Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP)
The concept of Management by Account (MBA) is not new.
-
SEC staff provides money market funds with no-action relief from the NRSRO designation requirements of Rule 2a-7 (Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP)
The staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) has issued a no-action letter to the Investment Company Institute stating that it would not recommend that the Commission institute an enforcement action under section 2(a)(41) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (1940 Act) if a money market fund board did not designate nationally recognized statistical rating organizations (NRSROs) or make related disclosures in its statement of additional information (SAI) before the Commission has completed its review of rule 2a-7 required by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act).
-
Federal court dismisses investors’ claims against auditors of Madoff feeder funds (Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP)
Yet another decision has held that the auditors of a fund that invested with Madoff may not be held liable to the investors of the feeder fund.
-
IRS concedes on certain FICA refund claims for medical residents (Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP)
The IRS has thrown in the towel with respect to pre-April 1, 2005, medical resident FICA claims based on the so-called "student exception."
-
Corporate citizenship simplified: The Hertz Corp. v. Friend (Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP)
The U.S. Supreme Court has brought clarity and predictability to an area of law that seldom can boast either.
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at ateague@lexology.com.