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 29

“Situs of the injury” for exercising personal jurisdiction over defendant for online copyright infringement is location of copyright owner

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 29 2011

In a decision favorable to copyright owners based in the state of New York, the New York State Court of Appeals held that in copyright infringement cases involving the uploading of copyrighted literary works onto the internet, the situs of the injury for purposes of determining personal jurisdiction under New York's long-arm jurisdiction statute is the location of the copyright holder and not the location of the infringing conduct

Owner of compilation need not list individual authors to register copyright

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 29 2013

In deciding issues of first impression for the circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against a

Online infringement of copyright cost sharing: UK government decision

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 4 2010

The Digital Economy Act (DEA) created an anti-piracy notification scheme allowing copyright holders to report suspected infringers to their Internet Service Providers (ISPs

Vicarious copyright infringement requires a showing of supervision or control

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 30 2013

In an opinion that elaborates on the degree of third-party supervision required in order to attach vicarious copyright infringement liability, the U.S

ISP not responsible for preventing illegal downloading: CJEU decision finds filtering system would infringe ISP’s business rights and customers’ freedom

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • January 12 2012

In Scarlet Extended SA v Société belge des auteurs, compositeurs et éditeurs SCRL C-7010 24 November 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union found that imposing an injunction on an internet service provider (ISP) requiring it to install a filtering system to prevent illegal downloading is unlawful under European law

Is “insolubly ambiguous” the correct standard to determine compliance with Sec 112?

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 5 2014

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on a petition challenging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's standard for determining when

CJEU finds hyperlinks to freely available copyright works do not infringe copyright

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union, Sweden
  • -
  • March 17 2014

In Svensson and others v Retriever Sverige AB C-46612, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has found that hyperlinking to a copyright

Searching for photos? Go ahead, Google those thumbnails

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • Germany
  • -
  • June 30 2010

The German Federal Supreme Court has decided that Google is not liable for unlawful copyright infringement for displaying thumbnail preview images of the artist's photographs in its search engine

Google Books is fair use and provides “significant public benefits”

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 31 2013

Since 2004, the Google Books project has scanned over 20 million books and has provided digital copies of the books to participating libraries while

“Hot news” cannot be enjoined under misappropriation claim

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 31 2011

In a case that attracted significant amici attention, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, invoking the copyright law principal of preemption, vacated an injunction against an internet news service that was based on a tort claim of misappropriation