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 100

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


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


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


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


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


The Weinstein Company v. Smokewood Entertainment Group, LLC
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • October 7 2009

In a breach of contract action, the district court grants defendant producer’s motion to dismiss claims by The Weinstein Company, holding that parties’ oral negotiations for licensing and distribution rights to the motion picture Push, allegedly confirmed by an email exchange, do not constitute a writing that satisfies Section 204 of the Copyright Act


Blakeman v. The Walt Disney Company, et al.
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • May 20 2009

Plaintiff, a political commentator, wrote a treatment called Go November which he described as “the Animal House of politics,” about a modern presidential campaign involving a litany of “dirty tricks.”


Barclays Capital Inc., et al. v. Theflyonthewall.com
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • March 24 2010

After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff financial institutions on their claims of copyright infringement and "hot news misappropriation" against online aggregator of financial information


Don Johnson Productions, Inc. v. Rysher Entertainment, Inc., et al.
  • Loeb & Loeb LLP
  • USA
  • June 17 2009

Plaintiff Don Johnson Productions (DJP) entered into an agreement (the “term agreement”) with defendant Rysher Entertainment to produce the television series Nash Bridges


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