We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 97

Siegel, et al. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., et al.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 19 2009

District court holds that plaintiffs, heirs of one of the co-creators of the Superman character, successfully terminated certain prior grants in copyrights and recaptured the rights to several Superman-related works from the 1930s and 40s, including portions of Superman comic books and two weeks’ worth of daily newspaper strips; however, the court ruled that the remaining Superman material at issue in the litigation was created as a work made for hire under the Copyright Act of 1909, and that ownership of such material remains solely with defendants

Bridgeport Music, Inc, et al v UMG Recordings, Inc, et al

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 11 2009

Sixth Circuit affirms a jury verdict which found defendants willfully infringed plaintiff’s musical composition copyright; court rejects defendants’ argument that district court erred in jury instructions about substantial similarity, fair use and willful infringement

Janky v. Lake County Convention and Visitors Bureau

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 12 2009

The Seventh Circuit finds that a song was a joint work, as a matter of law, where a songwriter’s fellow band member recommended changes which accounted for ten percent of the copyrighted song’s lyrical content and was listed as a co-author on the copyright registration

Jordan v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment Inc., et al

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 16 2009

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that plaintiff was time-barred under the Copyright Act from suing for co-ownership of defendant’s copyright because more than three years had elapsed since defendant registered with the Copyright Office; court also holds that the copyright registration solely in defendant’s name was sufficient to put the plaintiff on constructive notice that defendant claimed sole ownership in the work

Barclays Capital Inc., et al. v. Theflyonthewall.com

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 24 2010

After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff financial institutions on their claims of copyright infringement and "hot news misappropriation" against online aggregator of financial information

Ladd v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 2 2010

The California Court of Appeal holds that Warner Bros breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing owed to plaintiff, Alan Ladd Jr, a profit participant in several movies, when it allocated the same share of licensing fees to every movie in packages of films regardless of each movie's value

MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. et al.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 11 2009

Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (Blizzard) is the creator and operator of the popular online computer game World of Warcraft (WoW

DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Kaleidescape, Inc.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 19 2009

California Court of Appeal reverses trial court’s decision and holds that defendant, who licensed CSS technology from plaintiff DVD CCA and developed a home entertainment system that allows a user to play a movie without the physical DVD, was bound by the General Specifications provided by plaintiff, even though that document was not specifically referenced in the DVD CCA standard license agreement

Capitol Records, Inc., et al. v. Alaujan, et al.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 24 2009

In this copyright infringement action brought against several defendants for allegedly downloading sound recordings using a peer-to-peer network, one defendant filed a motion to dismiss in which he asserted that the statutory damages available to private parties under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 504(c) which range from $750 to $150,000 per infringement are so excessive and punitive in nature that they essentially convert his case into a criminal proceeding and violate his right to due process

Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 24 2010

Court grants summary judgment for YouTube and Google in copyright infringement action for large amount of copyrighted material on website, holding that defendants are entitled to the DMCA 512(c) safe harbor because they had insufficient notice of the particular infringements