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 103

Not all fun and games in copycat litigation

  • King & Wood Mallesons
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 11 2014

The gaming industry (and gamers) will be watching two recent US cases with great anticipation. In these cases, law suits have been brought against

You twit face! Protecting your IP in the world of YouTube, Twitter and Facebook: a practical protection guide for the IP owner

  • Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 22 2010

Social media sites such as YouTube, Twitter and Facebook present significant opportunities for individuals and businesses to communicate with extensive numbers of people in ways never before envisioned

TorrentSpy terminated as studios win $111 million judgment

  • Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 5 2008

The US District Court for the Central District of California has entered a staggering final judgment against Valence Media, LLC, awarding several major motion picture studios nearly $111 million in damages for copyright infringement

Limited damages available under DMCA 512(f) for wrongful takedown notice

  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 14 2010

Although DMCA 512(f) allows an award of "any damages" for wrongful removal of alleged infringing material as a result of misrepresentations to a service provider, such damages "must be proximately caused by the misrepresentation to the service provider and the service provider's reliance on the misrepresentation," a district court ruled

Social media sites: new battlegrounds for right of publicity disputes

  • Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 15 2012

Social media websites are quickly emerging as the new battleground for right of publicity disputes, with the ultimate question being an old one what are the parameters of First Amendment protections for corporate, commercial speech?

Fifty Shades of Grey and fan fiction: do you own your user-generated content?

  • Duane Morris LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 12 2013

The book series Fifty Shades of Grey and social media user "terms of service" might not seem to naturally intersect. After all, one is about being

Electra Entertainment Group Inc., et al. v. McDowell, USDC M.D. GA., November 6, 2007

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 14 2007

In a case involving unauthorized downloading and distribution, via the internet, of copyrighted sound recordings, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as to statutory damages and costs, but granted the motion in part as to plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction to prevent defendant from further copyright infringement

Summary judgment for YouTube demonstrates importance of complying with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

  • Baker & Hostetler LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 28 2010

A New York Federal Court Order granted summary judgment in favor of Google, and its subsidiary YouTube, demonstrating the potency of the "safe harbor" protection given to websites by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"

UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., et al.

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

Defendant Veoh operates an Internet-based service that allows users to share videos with others

Maverick Recording Co., et al. v. Harper

  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 3 2010

Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to plaintiff record companies for copyright infringement, based on defendant individual’s sharing of digital audio files, but reversed the lower court’s determination that the defendant was an “innocent infringer.”