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

Refine your search

Content type

Tags

Author

8 results found

Article

Loeb & Loeb LLP | USA | 14 Jul 2011

Warner Bros. Entertainment et al. v. X One X Productions, Inc., et al.

Circuit court affirms a permanent injunction restricting defendants’ depictions of copyrighted film characters derived from images in the public domain, allowing only a faithful reproduction, in whole or in part, of the uncopyrighted public domain images.

Article

Loeb & Loeb LLP | USA | 5 May 2011

Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc

On en banc rehearing, Ninth Circuit vacates earlier decision of three-judge panel and holds that the Copyright Act does not preempt plaintiffs’ state law claims for breach of implied contract and breach of confidence, even where the use of an idea is conditioned on the granting of a partnership interest in the proceeds of the production, rather than the payment of money.

Article

Loeb & Loeb LLP | USA | 19 Jan 2011

Barefoot Architect, Inc. v. Bunge

In a copyright infringement action, the Third Circuit holds that a written memorandum need not be contemporaneous to validate a prior oral transfer of a copyright, but rules that there must be extrinsic evidence demonstrating that the prior oral transfer actually took place.

Article

Loeb & Loeb LLP | USA | 2 Jun 2010

Cosmetic Ideas, Inc. v. IACInteractivecorp

The Ninth Circuit joins the Fifth and Seventh Circuits by holding that, for purposes of the Copyright Act's registration requirement for bringing an infringement claim, copyright registration occurs when the Copyright Office receives a complete application, rather than when the Copyright Office approves or rejects an application.

Article

Loeb & Loeb LLP | USA | 19 May 2010

William A. Graham Co. v. Haughey, et al

Court holds that prejudgment interest is appropriate in this case because it provides full compensation to the plaintiff and acts as a deterrent to willful copyright infringement; court calculates prejudgment interest from the date the infringement began, not the date plaintiff learned of the infringement.

Article

Loeb & Loeb LLP | USA | 27 Jan 2010

Capitol Records Inc., et al. v. Thomas-Rasset

In peer-to-peer copyright infringement action, court grants defendant’s motion for remittitur and reduces jury’s statutory damage award from $1,920,000 to $54,000 after holding that jury’s statutory damages award is shocking and unjust; court concludes that treble the minimum statutory damages amount of $750 per song is the maximum amount the jury could properly have awarded.

Previous page 1 Next page