Remove Cease and Desist Remove Marketing Remove Ownership Remove Technology
article thumbnail

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

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

This paradigm, however, breaks down when copyright ownership is contested. In that circumstance, the takedown notice becomes a proxy battle for a larger and likely fact-dependent war over ownership, which the service in the middle isn’t in a good position to resolve. Babybus Network Technology Co. , Powerwand Inc.

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. Universal. * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership. * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Summit Entertainment. * Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v. MGA Entertainment.

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

What are the intellectual property rights for startups?

Biswajit Sarkar Copyright Blog

These rights provide exclusive ownership and control over intangible assets, allowing creators to protect their innovations from unauthorised use, reproduction, or distribution. IPRs are crucial for startups as they safeguard their unique ideas and creations, enabling them to establish a competitive edge in the market.

article thumbnail

You’re a Fool if You Think You Can Win a 512(f) Case–Security Police and Fire Professionals v. Maritas

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

So this post is 100% true, even if it might sound farcical. * * * This ruling is part of an ongoing multi-iteration tussle (in and out of court) over market share between two rival unions. I’m pretty sure the drafters of 512(f) never contemplated that it would be invoked in disputes over ownership. BONUS 2: Barz Adventures Inc.

Fair Use 102
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. Universal * Two 512(f) Rulings Where The Litigants Dispute Copyright Ownership * It Takes a Default Judgment to Win a 17 USC 512(f) Case–Automattic v. Summit Entertainment * Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v.

article thumbnail

Anti-Circumvention Takedowns Aren’t Covered by 512(f)–Yout v. RIAA

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

One weird piece: the court implies that a copyright owner can enforce violations of access control limits deployed by third parties, i.e., RIAA could sue Yout for Yout’s violation of YouTube’s access control technology. Summit Entertainment. * Cease & Desist Letter to iTunes Isn’t Covered by 17 USC 512(f)–Red Rock v.

article thumbnail

Once Again, LinkedIn Can’t Use CFAA To Stop Unwanted Scraping–hiQ v. LinkedIn

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The court remains skeptical of LinkedIn’s privacy-based arguments: LinkedIn has no protected property interest in the data contributed by its users, as the users retain ownership over their profiles. Are robots.txt, IP address blocks, or cease-and-desist letters still relevant to the CFAA at all? Eric’s Comments.