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.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 59

Viacom International v. Google Inc.,

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 26 2013

On remand from the Second Circuit, district court grants summary judgment in favor of Google and its YouTube platform on all copyright infringement

Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi, Inc.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 19 2013

District court grants summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Capitol Records on its copyright claims against ReDigi, online “reseller” of pre-owned

UMG Recordings Inc. v. Veoh Networks Inc.

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 28 2013

Ninth Circuit upholds DMCA safe harbor protection from copyright infringement liability for defendant video-sharing site Veoh, affirming grant of summary judgment in defendants’ favor

Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. Barrydriller Content Systems, plc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 16 2013

California district court grants TV networks’ motion for preliminary injunction against internet streaming service, finding that, contrary to decisions by courts in the Second Circuit, streaming transmissions of copyrighted content likely infringed networks’ exclusive right to public performances

Diller v. Barry Driller, Inc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 27 2012

District court preliminarily enjoins creator of internet site BarryDriller.com from continuing to use the name “Barry Driller” to market an internet streaming service competing with a similar service backed by plaintiff Barry Diller

Yeager v. Bowlin

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 19 2012

Ninth Circuit affirms district court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s right of privacy and right of publicity claims as untimely, holding that statements published on websites are not “republished” under the single-publication rule unless the statement itself is substantively altered or added to or the website is directed to a new audience

Intercollegiate Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Board

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 19 2012

On appeal of final determination by the Copyright Royalty Board of default royalty rates and terms applicable to internet-based webcasting of digitally recorded music, court of appeals vacates and remands the CRB’s determination, finding that CRB as constituted at the time of the determination violated Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution

American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo, Inc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 19 2012

District court denies motion of plaintiffs, producers, marketers, and distributors of broadcast television, to enjoin Aereo from continuing that potion of its services that allows subscribers to watch broadcast television content contemporaneously with broadcast, finding Aereo’s service did not constitute public performance of copyrighted content under Second Circuit’s Cablevision decision

The Authors Guild v. Google, Inc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 6 2012

District court grants class certification to group of authors in copyright infringement action against Google, Inc. and recognizes standing of organizations asserting claims on behalf of members, concluding that Google’s plan to digitize millions of books raises common questions and entitles copyright holders to litigate on a group basis

Zuffa, LLC v. Justin.tv, Inc

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 15 2012

District court grants in part and denies in part motion to dismiss non-copyright claims arising out of live streaming of UFC fight through defendant’s internet service, limiting plaintiff’s trademark claims only to the display of trademarks that were not an inherent part of the video broadcast, and holding that Communications Act did not apply to defendant’s purported conduct