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 96

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

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

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

Cohen v. G&M Realty L.P.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 27 2013

In matter of first impression, district court denies preliminary injunction under federal Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) to graffiti artists

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

Experience Hendrix, L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com, LTD

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 16 2011

In a case regarding Jimi Hendrix’s right of publicity, the court found that the choice-of-law provisions of the Washington Personality Rights Act directing the application of Washington law regardless of the law of the domicile of the individual at the time of death was arbitrary and unfair, and declared the provisions unconstitutional

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

Latimore v. NBC Universal, Inc., et al.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 20 2009

On its own motion, the court dismissed Sonya Latimore’s complaint for copyright infringement and breach of contract against defendants, including NBC Universal, Inc. and Kim Fuller, a partner of McCreary & Fuller Public Relations Corp

Dunn v. DreamWorks Animation SKG, Inc.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 10 2013

California Court of Appeal affirms judgment in favor of defendant DreamWorks Animation on plaintiff’s breach of implied-in-fact contract claim

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