Remove Cease and Desist Remove Fair Use Remove Litigation Remove Marketing
article thumbnail

512(f) Plaintiff Must Pay $91k to the Defense–Digital Marketing v. McCandless

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Case Citation : Digital Marketing Advisors v. Heldman. * Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Ningbo Mizhihe v Doe. * Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)–Hughes v. New Destiny Church. * ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v. McCandless Group, LLC, 2022 WL 17403067 (C.D.

article thumbnail

People Don’t Come to See the Tattoo, They Come to See the Show

IP Tech Blog

The twists and turns of the case have some fun details, including Plaintiff demanding $10 million from Netflix in a pre-filing cease and desist letter (Netflix declined to pay), but we will focus on the legal issues. Netflix moved to dismiss the complaint on, among other grounds, fair use. Lynn Goldsmith, et al. ,

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Court Mistakenly Thinks Copyright Owners Have a Duty to Police Infringement–Sunny Factory v. Chen

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The court says the takedown notices are covered by the litigation privilege: “Since the statements at issue here were made to Amazon during the notice and takedown period, they are absolutely privileged. So extending the litigation privilege to DMCA takedown notices seems like an overreach. Defamation. Federici. * Biosafe-One v.

Copyright 127
article thumbnail

Surprise! Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Bored Ape Yacht Club v. Ripps

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Maritas * 512(f) Plaintiff Must Pay $91k to the Defense–Digital Marketing v. Heldman * Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Ningbo Mizhihe v Doe * Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)–Hughes v. New Destiny Church * ‘Reaction’ Video Protected By Fair Use–Hosseinzadeh v.

article thumbnail

Satirical Depiction in YouTube Video Gets Rough Treatment in Court

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Copyright Infringement/Fair Use. The Crony graphic appeared as the video’s thumbnail image and in the video’s first 10 seconds, so it was not a de minimis use. The Crony graphic also doesn’t qualify for fair use: Nature of Use. ” Market Effect. ” Amount Taken.

Fair Use 130
article thumbnail

512(f) Once Again Ensnared in an Employment Ownership Dispute–Shande v. Zoox

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The litigants are an employer and former employee. Maritas * 512(f) Plaintiff Must Pay $91k to the Defense–Digital Marketing v. Heldman * Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Ningbo Mizhihe v Doe * Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)–Hughes v. Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Bored Ape Yacht Club v.

article thumbnail

Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Moonbug v. Babybus

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

“Plaintiff’s takedown letters and supporting document establish facially plausible claims of infringement, and Babybus does not allege a plausible basis for a fair use defense.” Heldman. * Another 512(f) Claim Fails–Ningbo Mizhihe v Doe. * Video Excerpts Qualify as Fair Use (and Another 512(f) Claim Fails)–Hughes v.