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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 34

Cable Networks throw copyright infringement haymaker at online streaming sites
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 29 2015

The May 2nd bout between Floyd "Money" Mayweather and Manny "Pac-Man" Pacquiao(the "Fight") was billed as the most anticipated boxing match in recent


CDA Section 230 protects web site operator from liability for user's defamatory post, despite general statement on web site concerning accuracy of information
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • July 29 2010

A general statement on a Web site to the effect that posted information was truthful and accurate did not deprive the Web site operators of protection from liability for defamatory statements posted by third parties under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a Texas appeals court ruled


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


Music downloader's due process rights violated by copyright statutory damages award of $22,500 per song
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • September 30 2010

A jury award of $22,500 per song, resulting in a total award of $675,000 in statutory damages against an individual who downloaded copyrighted music files on a peer-to-peer network, violated the individual's due process rights, where he reaped no pecuniary reward from the infringement and the infringement caused the plaintiffs "minimal harm," a district court ruled


Web site owner's assertion of CDA Section 230 in response to defamation claim not an extortionate threat
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • September 30 2010

A Web site operator's assertion of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act in response to a demand that allegedly defamatory third-party content be removed from its consumer complaint site does not constitute an extortionate threat under California law, a district court ruled


No trademark infringement in search engine's sale of trademarks to generate search advertisements
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • September 30 2010

A search engine's sale of trademark terms to third parties to generate search advertisements does not constitute trademark infringement, a district court ruled


Google Books settlement would usurp congressional role in revising copyright law
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

Judge Chin found that the settlement was not "fair, adequate and reasonable," as required by the federal rules, and suggested that it might be able to be approved if it was changed to an opt-in, rather than an opt-out, settlement


CDA 230 protects blog owner from liability for third-party comment
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • May 5 2011

The court ruled the owner of a blog is not liable for an alleged defamatory comment even if the owner viewed and approved the comment prior to publication on the blog


Under Pennsylvania law, no tort action lies for internet posting of external photographs of residence
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 14 2010

Taking external photographs of a private residence and making the photographs available on a publicly accessible Web site does not give rise to a tort action under Pennsylvania law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled


Failure to allege that defendants were authors of defamatory posts merits dismissal under CDA Section 230
  • Proskauer Rose LLP
  • USA
  • April 14 2010

An action for defamation based upon comments on a Web site allegedly operated by the defendants was properly dismissed pursuant to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, where the plaintiff failed to allege that the defendants were the authors of any of the defamatory statements