case study on copyright act

Published By Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center

Summaries of fair use cases.

The best way to understand the flexible principle of fair use is to review actual cases decided by the courts. Below are summaries of a variety of fair use cases.

Ignore Heading – Content

Cases involving text.

• Fair use. Publisher Larry Flynt made disparaging statements about the Reverend Jerry Falwell on one page of Hustler magazine. Rev. Falwell made several hundred thousand copies of the page and distributed them as part of a fund-raising effort. Important factors: Rev. Falwell’s copying did not diminish the sales of the magazine (since it was already off the market) and would not adversely affect the marketability of back issues. (Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc., 606 F.Supp. 1526 (C.D. Cal., 1985).)
• Fair use. A biographer of Richard Wright quoted from six unpublished letters and ten unpublished journal entries by Wright. Important factors: No more than 1% of Wright’s unpublished letters were copied and the purpose was informational. (Wright v. Warner Books, Inc., 953 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1991).)
• Fair use (mostly). In a case alleging 75 instances of infringement in an educational setting, a district court, proposing a fair use standard based on less than 10% of a book, determined that 70 instances were not infringing. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the 10% standard and emphasized the importance of a flexible case-by-case fair use analysis. The case was remanded to the district court which, in 2016, found the majority of instances to be fair use. Important factors: On remand, the second factor (the scholarly nature of the work) and the fourth factor (impact of the use on the market value) weighed in favor of fair use. Cambridge University Press v. Patton, 769 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. Ga. 2014).
• Fair use. A district court ruled that libraries that provided a search engine company (Google) with books to scan were protected by fair use when the libraries later used the resulting digital scans for three purposes: preservation, a full-text search engine, and electronic access for disabled patrons who could not read the print versions. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed fair use as to the full-text database (“a quintessentially transformative use”) and as to use of text in formats accessible to print-disabled people (although not a transformative use, it is still considered a fair use based on the Betamax decision), but remanded the issue of fair use for long-term preservation of books. Important factors: As to the full-text database and disabled-access, the Court of Appeals did not find any evidence of financial harm. The Author’s Guild v. Hathitrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014).
• Fair use. A news organization (Bloomberg) tapped into an earnings report phone call made by executives of a foreign corporation (Swatch) to 132 analysts, and posted a recording and transcript of the phone call. Important factors: Bloomberg’s publication of the call was analogous to news reporting (publication of such calls is mandatory for American corporations). Because of that newsworthy purpose, a transformative use was not required. Further, the posting of the entire recording was necessary to fulfill this newsworthy purpose. The Second Circuit stated, “Bloomberg’s overriding purpose here was not to “scoop” Swatch or “supplant the copyright holder’s commercially valuable right of first publication,” but rather simply to deliver newsworthy financial information to American investors and analysts.” Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P. 742 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2014).
• Fair use. The black comedy, Hand to God, features the famed Abbott and Costello routine “Who’s on First?” The routine is spoken by a repressed character, whose hand puppet persona mocks him for pretending to be the author of the routine. Important factors: Though the use of the routine in the movie and play both elicit laughs, the play’s usage is transformative because the audience must be aware of the original in order to “get the joke.” TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum, No. 15 Civ. 4325 (S.D. N.Y. Dec. 17, 2105).
• Not a fair use. The Nation magazine published excerpts from ex-President Gerald Ford’s unpublished memoirs. The publication in The Nation was made several weeks prior to the date Mr. Ford’s book was to be serialized in another magazine. Important factors: The Nation’s copying seriously damaged the marketability of Mr. Ford’s serialization rights. ( Harper & Row v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985).)
• Not a fair use. A biographer paraphrased large portions of unpublished letters written by the famed author J.D. Salinger. Although people could read these letters at a university library, Salinger had never authorized their reproduction. In other words, the first time that the general public would see these letters was in their paraphrased form in the biography. Salinger successfully sued to prevent publication. Important factors: The letters were unpublished and were the “backbone” of the biography—so much so that without the letters the resulting biography was unsuccessful. In other words, the letters may have been taken more as a means of capitalizing on the interest in Salinger than in providing a critical study of the author. ( Salinger v. Random House, 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1987).)
• Not a fair use. An author copied more than half of an unpublished manuscript to prove that someone was involved in the overthrow of the Iranian government. Important factors: A substantial portion was taken (half of the work) and the work had not been published yet. ( Love v. Kwitny , 772 F.Supp. 1367 (S.D. N.Y., 1989).)
• Not a fair use. A company published a book entitled Welcome to Twin Peaks: A Complete Guide to Who’s Who and What’s What , containing direct quotations and paraphrases from the television show Twin Peaks, as well as detailed descriptions of plots, characters, and setting. Important factors: The amount of the material taken was substantial and the publication adversely affected the potential market for authorized books about the program. ( Twin Peaks v. Publications Int’l, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993).)
• Not a fair use. A company published a book of trivia questions about the events and characters of the Seinfeld television series. The book included questions based upon events and characters in 84 Seinfeld episodes and used actual dialog from the show in 41 of the book’s questions. Important factors: As in the Twin Peaks case, the book affected the owner’s right to make derivative Seinfeld works such as trivia books. ( Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publ. Group , 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998).)
• Not a fair use. In a case involving the author J.D. Salinger, an author wrote a book in which a character known as Mr. C was allegedly modeled after the character of Holden Caulfield, from Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye . After Salinger sued, the sequel’s author claimed that his work was a parody, an argument rejected by the district court. The court determined that fair use would not succeed as a defense and granted Salinger’s request for a preliminary injunction. (The Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the fair use analysis but reversed the case regarding the standard used for the preliminary injunction.) Important factors: Aging the character and placing him in the present day does not add something new, particularly since the character’s personality remains intact as derived from the original work. ( Salinger v. Colting , 641 F.Supp.2d 250 (S.D. N.Y. 2009).)
• Not a fair use. Although the creation of a Harry Potter encyclopedia was determined to be “slightly transformative” (because it made the Harry Potter terms and lexicons available in one volume), this transformative quality was not enough to justify a fair use defense. Important factors: An important factor in the court’s decision was the extensive verbatim use of text from the Harry Potter books. ( Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. v. RDR Books , 575 F.Supp.2d 513 (S.D. N.Y. 2008).)

Artwork, Visual Arts, and Audiovisual Cases

• Fair use. In a lawsuit commonly known as the Betamax case, the Supreme Court determined that the home videotaping of a television broadcast was a fair use. This was one of the few occasions when copying a complete work (for example, a complete episode of the Kojak television show) was accepted as a fair use. Evidence indicated that most viewers were “time-shifting” (taping in order to watch later) and not “library building” (collecting the videos in order to build a video library). Important factors: The Supreme Court reasoned that the “delayed” system of viewing did not deprive the copyright owners of revenue. ( Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).)
• Fair use. The makers of a movie biography of Muhammad Ali used 41 seconds from a boxing match film in their biography. Important factors: A small portion of film was taken and the purpose was informational. ( Monster Communications, Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting Sys. Inc. , 935 F.Supp. 490 (S.D. N.Y., 1996).)
• Fair use. A search engine’s practice of creating small reproductions (“thumbnails”) of images and placing them on its own website (known as “inlining”) did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Important factors: The thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to help the public access the images by indexing them. ( Kelly v. Arriba-Soft , 336 F.3d. 811 (9th Cir. 2003).)
• Fair use. It was a fair use, not an infringement, to reproduce Grateful Dead concert posters within a book. Important factors: The Second Circuit focused on the fact that the posters were reduced to thumbnail size and reproduced within the context of a timeline. ( Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. , 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006).)
• Fair use. A Google search engine did not infringe a subscription-only website (featuring nude models) by reproducing thumbnails. Important factors: The court of appeals aligned this case with Kelly v. Arriba-Soft (above), which also permitted thumbnails under fair use principles. ( Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007).)
• Fair use. A publisher of monster magazines from the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s sued the creator and publisher of a book, Famous Monster Movie Art of Basil Gogos . (Gogos created covers for the magazines.) The book publisher had obtained licenses from the artist directly, but not from the magazine publisher who claimed copyright under work-made-for-hire principles. The district court determined that the use was transformative. Important factors: The use was for a biography/retrospective of the artist, not simply a series of covers of magazines devoted to movie monsters. In addition, the magazines were no longer in print, and the covers amounted to only one page of the magazine, not the “heart” of the magazine. ( Warren Publishing Co. v. Spurlock d/b/a Vanguard Productions , 645 F.Supp.2d 402, (E.D. Pa., 2009).)
• Fair use. A seven-second clip from the Ed Sullivan TV show was used in a staged musical history (The Jersey Boys) based on the career of the musical group, the Four Seasons. Important factors: The use was transformative. (“Being selected by Ed Sullivan to perform on his show was evidence of the band’s enduring prominence in American music,” the judge wrote in the ruling. “By using it as a biographical anchor, [the defendant] put the clip to its own transformative ends.”) Further, the use caused no financial harm to the copyright owners of the show. SOFA Entertainment, Inc. v. Dodger Productions, Inc. , No. 2:08-cv-02616 (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2013).
• Fair use. The painter, Richard Prince, created a collage using—in one collage—35 images from a photographer’s book. The artist also used 28 of the photos in 29 additional paintings. In some instances the full photograph was used while in others, only the main subject of the photo was used. Important factors: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that to qualify as a transformative use, Prince’s work did not have to comment on the original photographer’s work (or on popular culture). The Court of Appeals concluded that 25 of Prince’s artworks qualified as fair use and remanded the case to determine the status of the remaining five artworks. Cariou v. Prince , U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, No. 11-1197.
• Fair use. The re-creation of three scenes from the film Deep Throat was a fair use when made for a biographical film about actress Linda Lovelace. Important factors: The re-created scenes were used in a non-pornographic film biography (with no nudity) about an actress who ultimately railed against pornography. This use illustrated a strong transformative purpose and demonstrated that the copyright owner of Deep Throat would be unlikely to lose revenue from this non-pornographic use. Arrow Productions, LTD v. The Weinstein Company LLC , 2014 WL 4211350 (S.D. N.Y. Aug. 25, 2014).
• Fair Use. A modified photo of a Wisconsin mayor was reproduced on a Tshirt and used to raise money for an event opposed by the mayor. Important factors: The Seventh Circuit was primarily persuaded by the level of alteration—the photo was posterized, background removed, text added, and a lime green outline featuring the mayor’s smile remained. The resulting image of the mayor, the court stated, “can’t be copyrighted.” Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC , 766 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2014).
• Fair use. A TV clipping database made it possible for users to search news broadcasts using keywords, then view a portion of the curated news clip containing those keywords. The court determined that the storage, indexing, excerpting, and reproduction of the clips was a fair use. Important factors: The district court emphasized the purpose of the database, which was unique and transformative. The court also dismissed the “very small possible impact” of lost revenues. Fox News v. TVEYES, Inc. , 43 F. Supp. 3d 379 (S.D. N.Y. 2014).
• Fair use. A disgruntled former commercial tenant (Chevaldina) used an unflattering photo of her former landlord (Katz) in 25 critical blog posts. Katz purchased the copyright in the photo and sued Chevaldina for infringement. Important factors: The use was considered noncommercial, and transformative because, “in the context of the blog post’s surrounding commentary, Chevaldina used Katz’s purportedly ‘ugly’ and ‘compromising’ appearance to ridicule and satirize his character.” Katz v. Chevaldina , No. 14-14525 (11th Cir. 2015).
• Fair use. In a battle over the use of viral videos, a humor program, Equals Three , reproduced viral videos from another source, Jukin Video, and commented on them, often reproducing the clips in their entirety. Important factors: The court determined that in the case of 18 of the 19 videos, Equals Three used no more than necessary of each video for purposes of its commentary; and that the jokes and commentary added something new to the viral videos. Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc. , 14-09041 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015).
• Fair use. An author created a parody of the surfer-thriller Point Break. The court found the work to be sufficiently transformative to justify fair use of the underlying movie materials. At issue in this case was the more novel question of whether the resulting parody could itself be protected under copyright. Important factors: The Second Circuit held that if the author of the unauthorized work provides sufficient original material and is otherwise qualified under fair use rules, the resulting work will be protected under copyright. Keeling v. Hars , No. 13-694 (2d Cir. 2015).
• Not a fair use. A television news program copied one minute and 15 seconds from a 72-minute Charlie Chaplin film and used it in a news report about Chaplin’s death. Important factors: The court felt that the portions taken were substantial and part of the “heart” of the film. ( Roy Export Co. Estab. of Vaduz v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. , 672 F.2d 1095, 1100 (2d Cir. 1982).)
• Not a fair use. A television station’s news broadcast used 30 seconds from a four-minute copyrighted videotape of the 1992 Los Angeles beating of Reginald Denny. Important factors: The use was commercial, took the heart of the work, and affected the copyright owner’s ability to market the video. ( Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9 , 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997).)
• Not a fair use. A poster of a “church quilt” was used in the background of a television series for 27 seconds. Important factors: The court was influenced by the prominence of the poster, its thematic importance for the set decoration of a church, and the fact that it was a conventional practice to license such works for use in television programs. ( Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc. , 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997).)
• Not a fair use. The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) licensed the use of a photo­graph of the Korean War veterans’ memorial sculpture for a postage stamp, but failed to obtain permission from the sculptor who held copyright in the underlying three-dimensional work. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the use of the underlying sculpture depicted in the photograph was not permitted under fair use principles. Important factors: It was not enough to transfer the work from three dimensions to two dimensions (despite the creative use of photography and snow in conjunction with the photos). ( Gaylord v. United States , 595 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010).)

Internet Cases

• Fair use. The Washington Post used three brief quotations from Church of Scientology texts posted on the Internet. Important factors: Only a small portion of the work was excerpted and the purpose was for news commentary. ( Religious Technology Center v. Pagliarina , 908 F.Supp. 1353 (E.D. Va., 1995).)
• Fair use. Displaying a cached website in search engine results is a fair use and not an infringement. A “cache” refers to the temporary storage of an archival copy—often a copy of an image of part or all of a website. With cached technology it is possible to search Web pages that the website owner has permanently removed from display. An attorney/author sued Google when the company’s cached search results provided end users with copies of copyrighted works. The court held that Google did not infringe. Important factors: Google was considered passive in the activity—users chose whether to view the cached link. In addition, Google had an implied license to cache Web pages since owners of websites have the ability to turn on or turn off the caching of their sites using tags and code. In this case, the attorney/author knew of this ability and failed to turn off caching, making his claim against Google appear to be manufactured. ( Field v. Google Inc. , 412 F.Supp.2d 1106 (D. Nev., 2006).)
• Fair use. A real estate blog copied the first eight sentences from a news­paper article. Important factors. The blogger had copied only eight sentences and had not copied the “valuable” section (the commentary included with the article), and the court did not believe that the copying would affect the market for the article (the third and fourth fair use factors). Righthaven LLC v. Realty One Group, Inc. , No. 2:10-cv-LRH-PAL, 2010 WL 4115413 (D. Nev., October 19, 2010).
• Fair use. A nonprofit organization posted a newspaper article about police discrimination on its website. The newspaper assigned its right in the article to a third party, Righthaven, which filed the lawsuit. Important factors. The court’s reasoning was influenced by the fact that Righthaven had acquired the copyright and was not in the newspaper business (it appeared to be in the “litigation business”). For that reason, the court reasoned that the nonprofit’s use was transformative because its purpose was to educate the public about immigration issues, whereas Righthaven had no such purpose for the article (because it was not in the news business). And also, because Righthaven was not in the news business, it could show no harm from the defendant’s dissemination of the article. Righthaven LLC v. JAMA , No. 2:2010-cv-01322, 2011 WL 1541613 (D. Nev., April 22, 2011).
• Fair use. A user of an online political forum posted a five-sentence excerpt from a newspaper article with a link back to the newspaper’s website. Important factors: The use was quantitatively small and did not cause the newspaper financial harm. In addition, the online political forum was permitted to use the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground , No. 2:10-cv-01356-RLH (GWF).
• Fair use. Google made digital copies of millions of books submitted to it by libraries, scanned them and made them available to search through its Google Books service, so that users could—for free—identify relevant words, terms, or snippets from the scanned text. Google also allowed participating libraries to retain the copies they submitted. Important factors: Google’s digitization was deemed a transformative use because it provided limited information about the books without allowing users more complete access to the works. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. , No. 13-4829 (2d Cir. 2015).

Ignore Heading – Sub table content

• Not a fair use. Several individuals without church permission posted entire publications of the Church of Scientology on the Internet. Important factors: Fair use is intended to permit the borrowing of portions of a work, not complete works. ( Religious Technology Center v. Lerma , 40 U.S.P.Q.2d 1569 (E.D. Va., 1996).)

Music Cases

• Fair use. A person running for political office used 15 seconds of his opponent’s campaign song in a political ad. Important factors: A small portion of the song was used and the use was for purposes of political debate. ( Keep Thomson Governor Comm. v. Citizens for Gallen Comm. , 457 F.Supp. 957 (D. N.H., 1978).)
• Fair use. A television film crew, covering an Italian festival in Manhattan, recorded a band playing a portion of a copyrighted song “Dove sta Zaza.” The music was replayed during a news broadcast. Important factors: Only a portion of the song was used, it was incidental to the news event, and it did not result in any actual damage to the composer or to the market for the work. ( Italian Book Corp., v. American Broadcasting Co. , 458 F.Supp. 65 (S.D. N.Y., 1978).)
• Not a fair use. Downloading songs is not a fair use. A woman was sued for copyright infringement for downloading 30 songs using peer-to-peer file sharing software. She argued that her activity was a fair use because she was downloading the songs to determine if she wanted to later buy them. Important factors: Since numerous sites, such as iTunes, permit listeners to sample and examine portions of songs without downloading, the court rejected this “sampling” defense. ( BMG Music v. Gonzalez , 430 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2005).)
• Not a fair use. A defendant in a music file sharing case could not claim a fair use defense since he had failed to provide evidence that his copying of music files involved any transformative use (an essential element in proving fair use). Important factors: The court held that the defendant was confusing “‘fairness’ and ‘fair use’—in the end, fair use is not a referendum on fairness in the abstract …” ( Capitol Records Inc. v. Alaujan , 2009 WL 5873136 (D. Mass., 7/27/09).)

Parody Cases

• Fair use. Comedians on the late-night television show Saturday Night Live parodied the song “I Love New York” using the words “I Love Sodom.” Only the words “I Love” and four musical notes were taken from the original work. Important factors: The Saturday Night Live version of the jingle did not compete with or detract from the original song. ( Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co. , 482 F.Supp. 741 (S.D. N.Y.), aff’d 632 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1980).)
• Fair use. The composers of the song “When Sunny Gets Blue” claimed that their song was infringed by “When Sonny Sniffs Glue,” a 29-second parody that altered the original lyric line and borrowed six bars of the song. A court determined this parody was excused as a fair use. Important factors: Only 29 seconds of music were borrowed (not the complete song). ( Fisher v. Dees , 794 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1986).) (Note: As a general rule, parodying more than a few lines of a song lyric is unlikely to be excused as a fair use. Performers such as Weird Al Yankovic, who earn a living by humorously modifying hit songs, seek permission of the songwriters before recording their parodies.)
• Fair use. The rap group 2 Live Crew borrowed the opening musical tag and the words (but not the melody) from the first line of the song “Pretty Woman” (“Oh, pretty woman, walking down the street”). The rest of the lyrics and the music were different. Important factors: The group’s use was transformative and borrowed only a small portion of the original song. The 2 Live Crew version was essentially a different piece of music; the only similarity was a brief musical opening part and the opening line. (Note: The rap group had initially sought to pay for the right to use portions of the song but were rebuffed by the publisher, who did not want “Pretty Woman” used in a rap song.) ( Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music , 510 U.S. 569 (1994).)
• Fair use. A movie company used a photo of a naked pregnant woman onto which it superimposed the head of actor Leslie Nielsen. The photo was a parody using similar lighting and body positioning of a famous photograph taken by Annie Leibovitz of the actress Demi Moore for the cover of Vanity Fair magazine. Important factors: The movie company’s use was transformative because it imitated the photographer’s style for comic effect or ridicule. ( Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. , 137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1998).)
• Fair use. A pro-life video organization created two antiabortion videos by borrowing video clips from a pro-choice video and juxtaposing them with actual abortion footage. Important factors: The court characterized the pro-life videos as parodies despite the fact they did not meet the classic definition of a parody—something that humorously mimics or ridicules another’s work. In a unique holding, the court held that a parody need not be humorous, but may merely comment on, or criticize the original. Northland Family Planning Clinic v. Center for Bio-Ethical Reform , No. SACV 11-731 JVS (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2012).
• Not a fair use. An artist created a cover for a New Yorker magazine that presented a humorous view of geography through the eyes of a New York City resident. A movie company later advertised their film Moscow on the Hudson using a similar piece of artwork with similar elements. The artist sued and a court ruled that the movie company’s poster was not a fair use. Important factors: Why is this case different from the previous case involving the Leslie Nielsen/Annie Leibovitz parody? In the Leibovitz case, the use was a true parody, characterized by a juxtaposition of imagery that actually commented on or criticized the original. The Moscow on the Hudson movie poster did not create a parody; it simply borrowed the New Yorker’s parody (the typical New York City resident’s geographical viewpoint that New York City is the center of the world). ( Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. , 663 F.Supp. 706 (S.D. N.Y., 1987).)
• Not a fair use. An author mimicked the style of a Dr. Seuss book while retelling the facts of the O.J. Simpson murder trial in The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the book was a satire, not a parody, because the book did not poke fun at or ridicule Dr. Seuss. Instead, it merely used the Dr. Seuss characters and style to tell the story of the murder. Important factors: The author’s work was nontransformative and commercial. ( Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. , 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997).)

Comments are closed.

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Copyrights Supreme Court Cases

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that Congress can “promote the progress of…useful art” by granting authors exclusive rights to their “writings.” This clause forms the foundation of U.S. copyright law, although the scope of copyrighted subject matter now extends well beyond “writings.” To be copyrightable, a creative work generally must have at least some originality and must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression. The holder of a copyright possesses a bundle of rights. These include the rights to reproduce, distribute, and publicly perform or display the work, as well as the right to create “derivative works” based on the original copyrighted work.

To sue someone else for infringing their copyright, the author must have registered their work with the U.S. Copyright Office. Perhaps the most common defense to infringement is the fair use defense, which generally requires a court to consider four factors:

• The purpose and character of the use
• The nature of the copyrighted work
• The amount and significance of the copied portion
• The market effect on the copyrighted work

As technology has evolved, copyright infringement of audio and visual works has become rampant despite the risk of harsh penalties. In response, the Supreme Court and other courts have developed theories of secondary copyright infringement, such as contributory infringement. These allow a copyright owner to more effectively enforce their rights.

Below is a selection of Supreme Court cases involving copyrights, arranged from newest to oldest.

Author: Sonia Sotomayor

If an original work and secondary use share the same or highly similar purposes, and the secondary use is commercial, the first fair use factor is likely to weigh against fair use, absent some other justification for copying.

Author: John Roberts

Copyright protection does not extend to the annotations in the official annotated code of a state.

Author: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

A copyright claimant may commence an infringement lawsuit only when the Copyright Office registers a copyright. Upon registration of the copyright, the copyright owner can recover damages for infringement both before and after registration.

Author: Clarence Thomas

A feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection only if the feature can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and it would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work (on its own or fixed in another tangible medium of expression) if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated.

Author: Stephen Breyer

A streaming service infringed the public performance right by selling its subscribers a technologically complex service that allowed them to watch television programs over the Internet at about the same time as the programs were broadcast over the air.

The first sale doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad.

Author: David Souter

An entity that distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses.

Author: John Paul Stevens

The first sale doctrine endorsed in Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act is applicable to imported copies. (The first sale doctrine generally provides that the owner of a copy of a work may sell or dispose of the copy without getting permission from the copyright owner.)

The Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages in a copyright infringement case, including the amount.

The cognizable harm under the fourth factor of the fair use test is market substitution, rather than harm from criticism. A parody is unlikely to act as a substitute for the original work, since the two works usually serve different market functions.

Author: William Rehnquist

Prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants in copyright infringement cases must be treated similarly regarding attorney fees, which may be awarded to prevailing parties only as a matter of the court's discretion.

Author: Sandra Day O’Connor

The originality requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in which order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author.

Assignees of the right to produce a derivative work or some other portion of the renewal rights hold nothing but an unfulfilled and unenforceable expectancy if the author dies before the renewal period, unless the assignees secure a transfer of the renewal rights from the author's statutory successor.

Author: Thurgood Marshall

A creator was an independent contractor when he engaged in a skilled occupation, supplied his own tools, worked in a separate workplace, was retained for a short period of time, had absolute freedom to decide when and how long to work, and had total discretion in hiring and paying assistants, among other factors. (This case concerned whether a creative work was a work for hire.)

Generally, the author's right to control the first public appearance of their un-disseminated expression will outweigh a claim of fair use.

Congress did not intend to draw a distinction between authorizations to prepare derivative works that are based on a single direct grant and those that are based on successive grants.

The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or is merely capable of substantial non-infringing uses.

Author: Potter Stewart

The reception of a radio broadcast of a copyrighted musical composition is not copyright infringement when the copyright owner has licensed the broadcaster to perform the composition publicly for profit.

Author: Warren Burger

The Constitution does not expressly or by inference vest all power to grant copyright protection exclusively in the federal government.

Author: Stanley Reed

Artistic articles are protected in form, but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects.

Author: Mahlon Pitney

One who gathers news at pains and expense, for the purpose of lucrative publication, may be said to have a quasi-property in the results of their enterprise as against a rival in the same business, and the appropriation of those results at the expense and to the damage of one and for the profit of the other is unfair competition, against which equity will afford relief.

Author: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The performance of a copyrighted musical composition in a restaurant or hotel without charge for admission to hear it but as an incident of other entertainment for which the public pays infringes the public performance right.

Author: William Rufus Day

The sole right to vend granted by federal copyright law does not secure to the owner of the copyright the right to qualify future sales by their vendee or to limit or restrict such future sales at a specified price.

The least pretentious picture has more originality in it than directories, which may be copyrighted.

Author: Henry Billings Brown

When there is no evidence that the publishers were the assignees or acted as the agents of the author for the purpose of taking out copyright, the copyright entry of a magazine will not validate the copyright entry subsequently made under a different title by the author of a portion of the contents of the magazine.

Author: Samuel Freeman Miller

Congress can confer copyright protection for photographs that are representations of original intellectual conceptions.

Author: Joseph Bradley

A claim to the exclusive property in a peculiar system of bookkeeping cannot be maintained by the author of a treatise in which that system is exhibited and explained.

Author: John McLean

No reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by the Supreme Court, and the Justices cannot confer on any reporter any such right.

• Communications and Internet Law
• Entertainment Law
• Intellectual Property
• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

• --> Login or Sign Up

• Problem Solving Workshop

Sue the Consumer: Digital Copyright in the New Millennium

Charles Nesson and Sarah Jeong

Share This Article

• Custom Field #1
• Custom Field #2
• Similar Products

Product Description

In December 1999, the Recording Industry Association of America brought suit against Napster, a peer-to-peer file-sharing company for downloading music. With the new millennium came a spree of other suits against similar companies, with the RIAA often emerging victorious. However, the lawsuits failed to stamp out peer-to-peer downloading, which transitioned to open source software that could not be linked to specific software developers. The lawsuit spree didn’t end either: instead, the recording industry sued the downloaders.

This background note surveys the evolution of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing and copyright infringement suits, and highlights the plight of consumers in the United States’ rare statutory damages regime. Readers will become versed in the precedent cases, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the basic technology of P2P and torrenting. The note sparks readers to envision a future for end users and fair use of digital content.

NOTE: This case is an adaptation of From Sony to SOPA: The Technology-Content Divide , also available from HLS Case Studies.

Learning Objectives

• Identify a systematic approach to problem solving when faced with an unresolved issue or new situation.
• Understand how the U.S. copyright system works in cases of unauthorized downloads of creative works.
• Debate the pros and cons of the current copyright regime.
• Consider a defendant’s course of action when faced with a suit or takedown notice.

Subjects Covered

Copyright, intellectual property, statutory damages, peer-to-peer file-sharing, recording industry, fair use

Setting  

Geographic: United States

Industry: Technology, Music

Event Start Date: 1984

Accessibility

To obtain accessible versions of our products for use by those with disabilities, please contact the HLS Case Studies Program at [email protected] or +1-617-496-1316.

Educator Materials

Registered members of this website can download this product at no cost.  Please  create an account  or  sign in  to gain access to these materials. 

Note: It can take up to three business days after you create an account to verify educator access. Verification will be confirmed via email.

For more information about the Problem Solving Workshop, or to request a teaching note for this case study, contact the Case Studies Program at [email protected] or +1-617-496-1316.

Additional Information

Case Studies in Cyber-Citizenship

The Problem Solving Workshop: A Video Introduction

Case Studies Greatest Hits

Copyright Information

Please note that each purchase of this product entitles the purchaser to one download and use.  If you need multiple copies, please purchase the number of copies you need. For more information, see  Copying Your Case Study .

Product Videos

Custom field, product reviews, write a review.

Find Similar Products by Category

Recommended.

Ching Pow: Far East Yardies!!

Charles Nesson and Saptarishi Bandopadhyay

In the Stadium and in the Street: The Brazil Soccer Riots

MOOCs and Consequences for the Future of Education

Jeffrey R. Young and Charles Nesson

• Related Products

Copyright Law in 2018: Top 10 Court Cases

By Keith Kupferschmid 18 January 2019

There were many significant copyright-related court cases decided during 2018. Breaking them down, the most significant were:

ABS Entertainment v. CBS Corporation

A case involving whether digitally remastered pre-1972 sound recordings are independently copyrightable.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgement in favor of CBS, holding that “the creation of an authorized digital remastering of pre-1972 analog sound recordings that qualify as copyrightable derivative works does not bring the remastered sound recordings exclusively under the ambit of federal law,” and that “the district court erred in concluding that plaintiffs’ state copyright interest in the pre-1972 sound recordings embodied in the remastered sound recordings was preempted by federal copyright law.”

A case in which BMG Rights Management accused Cox Communications of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement based on its subscribers’ peer-to-peer file-sharing.

The lower court had held that Cox did not qualify for safe harbor protection under the DMCA because “no reasonable jury could find that Cox implemented a [repeat infringer] policy” as required by the DMCA to obtain safe harbor. The Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s grant of summary judgment on this matter de novo. Cox argued that the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of BMG and that the term “repeat infringers” as it is used in § 512(i)(1)(A) should be limited to adjudicated infringers. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with Cox’s interpretation and affirmed the lower court, stating that “Congress knew how to expressly refer to adjudicated infringement, but did not do so in the repeat infringer provision” and holding that “term ‘infringer’ in § 512(i) is not limited to adjudicated infringers.” The Court also found that Cox was “clearly determined not to terminate subscribers who in fact repeatedly violated the policy,” and that, “[a]t a minimum… an ISP has not ‘reasonably implemented’ a repeat infringer policy if the ISP fails to enforce the terms of its policy in any meaningful fashion” as Cox did in this case. For those reasons, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling that Cox is ineligible for DMCA safe harbor protection for failing to reasonably implement a repeat infringer policy “in any consistent or meaningful way — leaving it essentially with no policy.” BMG petitioned for a rehearing but was denied, and the parties eventually ended up settling the case.

Cambridge University Press v. Albert

A case brought by several academic publishers in 2008 that alleged infringement by Georgia State University in connection with its course e-reserve system.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the district court misinterpreted its previous mandate and misapplied the fair use test. Specifically, the court agreed with the publishers’ arguments that the district court erred when it made its new findings of fair use after the first appeal, both when it revisited its factor four analysis and when it again applied a “mathematical formula” for weighing and balancing the four factors in its overall calculus of fair use for each excerpt. The court also held that the district court erred when it considered the cost of purchasing licenses in finding that the third factor favored fair use. Finally, the Eleventh Circuit vacated the lower court’s decision finding GSU a prevailing party and awarding it attorneys’ fees.

Capitol Records v. ReDigi

A case involving a service that allowed users to “resell” digital mp3 files.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit published its long-anticipated decision affirming the district court’s finding that ReDigi infringed the reproduction rights of plaintiffs. The court affirmed the district court’s holding that ReDigi’s service created a new copy of a sound recording, and the reproduction right is not subject to the first sale doctrine, which applies solely to a particular phonorecord. The court also rejected ReDigi’s argument that its technical process of deleting the original copy of the file in the course of reselling a sound recording does not constitute a reproduction. Further, the court held that the deletion does not nullify the fact that a reproduction has been made, and that ReDigi’s fair use defense (relying heavily on its fair use decision in  TVEyes ) does not stand up.

Code Revision Commission v. Public.Resource.org

A case concerning whether the Official Code of Georgia Annotated (OCGA) was eligible for copyright protection.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that “where the official who created the work is entrusted with delegated sovereign authority, where the work carries authoritative weight, and where the work was created through the procedural channels in which sovereign power ordinarily flows – it follows that the work would be attributable to the constructive authorship of the People, and therefore uncopyrightable,” finding the OCGA uncopyrightable as a result.

Davidson v. United States

A case involving a photograph of the Lady Liberty replica statue in Las Vegas, which was reprinted on U.S. postage stamps under the mistaken belief that the photograph was of the original statue in New York.

The U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled in favor of the sculptor in the amount of $3.5 million plus interest. The USPS argued that the replica statue “is too similar to the original in New York Harbor and that the government’s use copied nothing original to plaintiff,” and also asserted a fair use defense. But the court held that “Mr. Davidson’s work was original and … the Postal Service’s use of it was not permitted by statute.”

Fox News v. TVEyes

A case concerning whether TVEyes’ subscription service allowing users to view, download, and email ten-minute clips of Fox’s programming qualified as fair use.

The TVEyes’ service, which was available for $500 a month to businesses, governments, and professionals (but not for personal use), offered recorded programming 24/7 from over 1,400 television and radio stations. It also compiled the recorded programs into text-searchable databases. Subscribers could search the database by keyword, or by date and time, and could then watch, archive, download, and email the ten-minute-long clips contained in the search results. The District Court  held  that the function in TVEyes’ service that enabled subscribers to search for videos and clips using keywords (“Search Function”) and the functions that allowed subscribers to watch, archive, and share relevant clips with others (“Watch Function”) were both allowed under the fair use exception. The District Court held that the functions that allowed TVEyes’ subscribers to download and freely email clips or to watch clips obtained by using search functions other than by keywords were not fair use. Fox appealed the decision relating to the Watch function to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Second Circuit reversed the District Court’s finding of fair use on the Watch Functions, and remanded the case to the District Court to revise the injunction in light of its fair use ruling.

In its fair use analysis, the Second Circuit undeniably regarded the fourth factor concerning potential market harm as the “single most important element of fair use” and weighed in favor of Fox. Further, the Court found that TVEyes displaced revenue that Fox should have earned on its work, and further determined that, instead of properly licensing from Fox, TVEyes distributed and provided access to Fox’s content without licensing, therefore depriving Fox of the opportunity to get properly paid undermining the basic rule of copyright law that a copyright owner is entitled to control how to license (if at all) to those who want to use the work. The Court stated that, since “the ability to re-distribute Fox’s content in the manner that TVEyes does is clearly of value to TVEyes, it (or a similar service) should be willing to pay Fox for the right to offer the content.” The Court concluded by noting that “TVEyes ha[d] usurped a function for which Fox is entitled to demand compensation under a licensing agreement,” and weighed this factor in favor of Fox. TVEyes subsequently filed a  petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court, which the Court recently denied.

Goldman v. Breitbart

A case concerning “how images [here, a photo of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady] shown on one website, but stored on another website’s server, implicate an owner’s exclusive display right.”

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the photographer’s partial motion for summary judgment, stating that “when defendants caused the embedded Tweets to appear on their websites, their actions violated plaintiff’s exclusive display right; the fact that the image was hosted on a server owned and operated by an unrelated third party (Twitter) does not shield them from this result.” In so holding, the court rejected the “Server Test” that was articulated in  Perfect 10 v. Amazon , explaining that the “plain language of the Copyright Act, the legislative history undergirding its enactment, and subsequent Supreme Court jurisprudence, provide no basis for a rule that allows the physical location or possession of an image to determine who may or may not have ‘displayed’ a work within the meaning of the Copyright Act.” (The Second Circuit rejected an immediate appeal of the decision in July, but the decision will likely be appealed when the district court makes a final judgment.)

Oracle v. Google

A case concerning Google’s use of Oracle’s Java APIs in the Android platform. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, reversing the lower court, held that Google’s use did not constitute fair use as a matter of law, and remanded the case for a trial on damages. On the first factor, the Court rejected Google’s argument that using the APIs in a smartphone context was transformative enough while on the fourth factor, the Court held that Google effectively prevented Oracle from accessing the potential mobile devices market for the APIs. The Court stated that “[t]here is nothing fair about taking a copyrighted work verbatim and using it for the same purpose and function as the original in a competing platform,” and that Google’s “superseding use is inherently unfair.” Google plans to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court recently extended its deadline for doing so to January 2019.

3 District Court Fair Use Cases of Note in 2018

There were also several district court fair use cases worth noting simply to highlight how colossally the district court botched the fair use analysis. The three cases worth mentioning here are: Philpot v. Media Research Center , Brammer v. Violent , and Bell v. Powell .

In Philpot v. Media Research Center , Media Research Center used two of Philpot’s photos without permission in two separate online articles: a photo of Kenny Chesney in an article about pro-life celebrities; and a photo of Kid Rock in an article about his rumored U.S. Senate campaign. On summary judgment, the district court held both uses to be fair use on the basis that (1) defendant’s use was transformative because the purpose in using the photos – “to identify the celebrities as pro-life advocates or conservative Senate candidates” – was different from plaintiff’s purpose in taking the photos; (2) the use was not commercial because, while defendant collected display advertising revenues from its articles, it “does not charge readers for access to its articles, nor did it sell the Chesney and Kid Rock photographs to other parties” (the court also gave weight to the defendant’s status as a non-profit organization); and (3) the fourth fair use factor weighed in favor of fair use because “Defendant’s use of the Chesney and Kid Rock Photographs cannot impair the marketability of plaintiff’s works where, as here, plaintiff has not actually contemplated marketing those works” (because plaintiff had uploaded the photos to Wikimedia under a nonexclusive Creative Commons license).

In Brammer v. Violent – a case involving the Northern Virginia Film Festival’s alleged infringing use of Brammer’s time-lapsed photograph of a D.C. neighborhood on its website – the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held that the conduct constitutes fair use in part because, “while Brammer’s purpose in capturing and publishing the photograph was promotional and expressive, [the defendant’s] purpose in using the photograph was informational: to provide festival attendees with information regarding the local area,” and therefore, the court held that the use was transformative. In discussing the fourth factor, the court held that the use did not adversely affect the market for the photograph, because the photograph has been licensed at least two times since the alleged infringement, “demonstrating that [the defendant’s] use did not affect the market for the photo” and because the defendant “did not sell copies of the photo or generate any revenue from it.”

Bell v. Powell is a case involving an organization that published a brochure to promote its conference and included in the brochure a photograph of the Indianapolis skyline without permission from the photographer. In the case, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, on a motion for summary judgment, concluded that defendant’s use was a fair use because the photograph was not a prominent feature of the brochure, but rather it “appeared with two other photographs to show the location of the conference,” and that the defendants did not profit from the use of the brochure. The Court also relied on its determination that “the nature of Bell’s Indianapolis Nighttime Photo was a depiction of a city skyline in order to sell copies of a photograph of the Indianapolis skyline, whereas the nature of the photograph on MRNISO’s brochure was to provide a factual depiction of Indianapolis to inform the public about where an educational, professional conference on sexual assault would be held.” All three of these cases are painful for anyone who knows even the slightest bit about copyright fair use. Just about every part of the fair use analysis in the cases is completely incorrect. These holdings, if they are permitted to stand and be used as precedent when deciding future cases, could potentially be damaging to copyright owners—particularly press and stock photographers.

Predictions for 2019

While 2018 was certainly filled with both interesting and bizarre copyright court cases, 2019 promises more of the same. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear two cases: Fourth Estate v. Wall-Street.com , on January 8, and Rimini Street v. Oracle , on January 14. The Fourth Estate case concerns the issue of whether the registration requirement for initiating an infringement suit is satisfied by the “application approach” or the “certificate approach.” The Rimini Street case concerns whether §505 of the Copyright Act limits what costs a court may award to a prevailing party in a copyright infringement case. Of course, as noted above, the Court will also decide whether it will take on the much-publicized Oracle v. Google fair use case.

Toward the end of 2018, we also saw several copyright infringement cases filed against Epic Games (the creator of the wildly popular video game Fortnite) and others , alleging infringements of dance moves. So, it looks like 2019 will also be the year we find out the scope of copyright protection afforded to dance moves.

Related Reading

• Copyright Alliance Blog
• 2018 in Review: CCC’s Top Headlines on Digital Transformation, Copyright Law and Open Access
• Scoreboard: 2018 Copyright Trends

Subscribe to CCC’s blog

Don’t miss a post

• Who We Are -
• Trademark Services
• Plant Varieties
• Online Protection Services
• Patent Services
• Translation Services
• Industrial Design and Utility Model Services
• IP Services
• SAUDI ARABIA
• UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
• Contact Us -

Corporate Kaijus Clash: 15 Famous Copyright Infringement Cases

What is Copyright Infringement

Infringement of copyright occurs when an individual unlawfully violates the exclusive rights bestowed upon a copyright proprietor, sans their authorization. These exclusive rights entail the freedom to duplicate, circulate, execute, showcase, and engender derivative works from a unique work of authorship.

Ideas are a nebulous concept, and legally protecting something intangible can result in an interesting chain of events, especially when big names and corporations are thrown into the mix. We'll delve into some historic courtroom battles over alleged copyright violations and look at some of the most high-profile cases ever brought by well-known plaintiffs.

Here are the 15 most famous instances of copyright infringement:

1. Whitmill vs Warner Brothers

Despite Hangover 2's success, its publisher, Warner Brothers, was sued by tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill for using Whitmill's uncredited tattoo design without permission in the film and its promotional materials.

Despite Warner Brothers' claims that their use of the design was protected by the "fair use" policy, Whitmill pursued the case and sought a preliminary injunction that would have prevented the film from hitting theaters on schedule.

While the judge did rule against Whitmill's injunction request, he did agree that Whitmill still had a solid case and could pursue the lawsuit on other grounds.

An agreement was reached behind closed doors, and the film was released on schedule, thereby creating comedic history.

2.  Katy Perry vs Marcus Gray

Copyright infringement and the music industry go together like peanut butter and jelly, so it stands to reason that this sector accounts for the lion's share of high-profile cases.

Dark Horse, Katy Perry's 2013 smash single, was one of the year's biggest hits. Earning recognition for achievements like selling over 13 million copies worldwide, attracting billions of Youtube views, having the song performed live during the Super Bowl, and winning MTV's music awards for best female video music in 2014.

In spite of this, Marcus Gray, a rapper, sued Perry the same year, claiming that she had stolen the riff and beat from his song "Joyful Noise''. Legal representation for Katy Perry argued that Gray's statement is preposterous and that he is trying to hold "the basic blocks of music," which could harm all composers.

Damages for Gray's case were estimated at $2.78 million and were awarded to him by the court in 2019. The judge would overturn the initial decision, however, in 2020 after an appeal was submitted, claiming that there was simply insufficient evidence to support the case.

3. The Music Industry vs Napster

A young technical genius named Shawn Fanning developed a piece of software called Napster in 1999 when the internet was still in its infancy. It is a peer-to-peer file-sharing application that allows users to freely share and download music.

Suffice it to say, Napster caught the attention of the music Industry. Metallica's drummer Lars Ulrich filed a lawsuit against the developer of the software in 2000, alleging copyright infringement, unauthorized use of a digital audio interface device, and racketeering.

This is believed to be the first case in which a well-known artist has directly sued a peer-to-peer file-sharing software company. This caused a domino effect in which major record labels like A&M and others began suing Napster. The plaintiffs accused the software company of vicarious copyright infringement and were eventually found guilty in 2002.

To the public's chagrin, Napster was forced to close that year, apologized publicly, and paid up to $26 million in damages.

This incident served as the catalyst for some people's animosity toward Metallica.

Legal protection of something intangible such as an Idea can result in an interesting chain of events.

4. Vanilla Ice vs David Bowie & Queen

As the first hip-hop single to reach number one on the Billboard Hot 100, Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" left an indelible mark on popular culture. However, one of its worst qualities is that it sampled the bass lines from Under Pressure, a hit song by Queen and David Bowie.

Vanilla Ice tried to defend himself from the lawsuit brought against him by Queen and David Bowie for the unauthorized use of their song by claiming that he had added a single note to the end of the riff to make it more unique, but this was deemed insufficient.

The case was eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money, with both Queen and Bowie receiving songwriting credit.

5. Apple vs Microsoft

There was once a time when the two tech giants squared off in court.

Apple filed a lawsuit against Microsoft in 1988, shortly after the release of Windows 2.0 , a significant upgrade to the original version. At the time, Apple accused Microsoft of plagiarizing the graphical user interface found on the Macintosh system without permission or a license.

This is where the case becomes interesting, as Apple did in fact grant Microsoft permission to use Macintosh's design elements in Windows. The mystery surrounding this part is that, for some reason, Apple's legal department did not receive the memo, after the release of Windows 2.0,

Apple was so taken aback by the suddenness of the legal proceedings that it skipped sending any sort of preemptive warning or threat.

As a result of this misunderstanding, the court ruled in favor of Microsoft in 1989, and although Apple attempted to appeal the decision multiple times, all of its efforts were unsuccessful.

6. Gucci vs Guess

In 2009, two of the fashion industry's most recognizable names squared off when Gucci sued Guess, alleging that the latter had violated several of Gucci's trademarks. Gucci had originally asked for $221 million in damages but settled for $4.1 million.

So why did that happen? The judge reasoned that Gucci's claim that it has repeatedly sent cease-and-desist letters to various parties over the years was a fatal flaw in the company's case.

These entities ranged from national corporations to small-time counterfeiters and infringers. With budgetary concerns and the fact that most of their evidence was speculative, Gucci's defense department has been stretched thin.

7. Starbucks vs Obsidian Group

Starbucks sued rival coffee chain Obsidian Group in 2016 for promoting its newest drink, the Freddoccino. Starbucks claimed that the name's similarity violates the copyright of their own popular iced coffee, the Frappuccino.

Despite Obsidian's efforts to assuage concerns by renaming their drink "the Freddo," Starbucks remained steadfast in their pursuit of the case, and the case has yet to be resolved as of mid-late 2022.

8. Art Buchwald vs Paramount Studios

In 1990, writer and comedian Art Buchwald sued Paramount, claiming that the studio stole his ideas from an abandoned project and turned them into the film's screenplay.

According to Paramount's defense, at the time, they paid their authors through the "Hollywood account," which means the screenwriters are paid based on how much profit the film made.

They stood firm in their claim that, despite gross revenue of $288 million dollars, the film produced no net profit, and thus they were not required to pay Buchwald. If this statement struck you as perplexing, the judge felt the same way.

He called Paramount's payment method "blatantly unethical and unconscionable" and ruled in Buchwald's favor, awarding him 900,000 dollars in damages.

9.  Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica

For science fiction fans, 1977 was an interesting year. Twentieth Century Fox sued Universal Studios for infringement the same year that A New Hope was released and defined a generation.

Fox asserted that Battlestar Galactica, a science fiction series produced by Universal, was "too similar" to one of their flagship intellectual properties.

Universal Studio did not take this lightly and filed a lawsuit of its own, claiming that Star Wars stole ideas from older media, such as the 1972 film Silent Running.

Two years later, the case was resolved in favor of Battlestar Galactica. The franchise as a whole was not doing so well at the time, despite the positive publicity surrounding the movie. The original show had been canceled, and fans were flocking to see The Empire Strikes Back.

10. Apple vs Google

In 2010, as smartphones became increasingly important in our daily lives, Apple and Samsung went to court over Samsung's alleged violations of Apple's patents on several of its smartphone designs. Apple's main competitor was not Samsung per se, but rather the Android operating system developed by Google and used by Samsung and other manufacturers.

Partially because of a "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement," Google's legal team had to intervene to help Samsung.

Concurrently, Motorola filed one of the most publicized lawsuits in technology history, accusing Apple of intellectual property infringement. Motorola claimed that Apple violated their patents on 3G phone technology and other aspects of smartphone design, while Apple fired back by claiming that Motorola had infringed on their patents on a number of features.

The court was so frustrated by the fight that the judges threw out the case three times in 2012, on the grounds that neither party had enough implicated evidence and were told to settle out of court. 2012 was the year that Google bought Motorola.

Although Apple has never directly attacked Google, they appear to focus on third-party companies that sell Google's software products; nonetheless, Google appears to be adamant in defending its popular mobile software.

11. Bratz vs Barbie

Carter Bryant, the creator of Bratz, was previously employed by Mattel, the manufacturer of Barbie. During his time working at Barbie, he came up with the idea for Bratz, which he later sold to one of Mattel's biggest competitors, MGA Entertainment.

The new doll franchise debuted in 2001 and quickly became the plastic bombshell's biggest competitor.

Mattel sued both Bryant and MGA in 2008, claiming that Bryant's idea was stolen intellectual property. MGA countersued, resulting in the two doll manufacturers locking horns.

MGA accused Mattel of corporate espionage by having its employees trained in spying on its competitors and resorting to clandestine underhanded tactics, such as having its employees print fake business cards and use them to enter the private showrooms of its competitor.

The lawsuit concluded in 2013 with a verdict in favor of MGA and an award of $170 million in damages, but Mattel would file an appeal to overturn the verdict, causing both parties to walk away empty-handed.

12. Naruto vs Slater

Photographer David Slater left his camera unattended while photographing wildlife in a foreign reserve, leading to a court case involving copyright infringements involving both humans and animals.

A crested macaque named Naruto discovered the camera and started taking the now-famous "Monkey Selfies" that have been making the rounds online. Slater, after discovering the images in his camera, published the image and its context on the website Blurb.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) took notice of the photo after it went viral and sued Slater, Wildlife Personalities Ltd., and Blurb for copyright infringement, arguing that the selfies violated Naruto's authorship rights. In response, Slater filed a motion to dismiss, and the judge quickly sided with Slater, finding that Naruto lacked standing under the Copyright Act.

13. Lana Del Ray vs Radiohead

Lana Del Rey once claimed that Radiohead sued her for allegedly plagiarizing the hit song "Creep" in her 2017 single Get Free. Warner/Chappell, Radiohead's publisher, denied suing Del Ray or taking legal action against her, but admitted requesting that she attribute Creep to "all writers."

In 2018, during a Lollapalooza performance in Brazil, Del Ray appeared to confirm that the alleged lawsuit is over by telling her audience, "Now that my lawsuit is over, I guess I can sing that song whenever I want, right?"

14. John Fogerty vs John Fogerty

In one of the strangest copyright cases ever litigated, a record label once sued an artist for sounding like himself in a song he had written and performed decades earlier. John Fogerty is a musician and songwriter who was a member of the band Creedence Clearwater Revival (CCR). He eventually left the group to pursue a solo career, and his efforts paid off during the 1980s.

However, that all changed when he released a song titled "The Old Man Down the Road," which was later sued by CCR's record label, Fantasy Records, for allegedly plagiarizing CCR's "Run Through the Jungle." That's right; John Fogerty was sued over a tune he composed himself.

The judge sided with Fogerty in the end, saying, "you can't plagiarize yourself," effectively ending any further discussion as to whether or not he plagiarized himself.

After Fogarty's victory, he filed a countersuit against Fantasy Labels to recover the money he had spent on the case. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, where it was ultimately decided in favor of the plaintiff. The judge ruled that the circumstances of the case ran counter to the original intent of the copyright law, which was to safeguard creative endeavors and promote new ideas.

15. Youtube vs Viacom

Viacom sued YouTube for $1 billion in 2007 for "Brazen" copyright infringement for allegedly hosting over 150,000 clips of Viacom's television shows and owned properties on their website.

YouTube argued that it is not legally responsible for content that infringes on third-party copyrights because it is merely an online service provider. This side issue could become the case's deciding factor.

The judge issued an order requiring YouTube to turn over its internal communications logs and transcripts to Viacom for review. If not for one small detail, this evidence would be considered indisputable and Viacom would have won without a doubt. As part of a guerilla marketing campaign, Viacom hired 18 advertising firms to create "unofficial accounts" and upload them as random users before the trial began, an action that can be described as nothing less than a blunder.

Worse yet, Viacom had no idea which accounts belong to them, so they ended up suing the third party to remove content that they had uploaded themselves.

This gave YouTube new life, and they argued that it was unreasonable to remove any account without knowing whether or not it belonged to Viacom.

Since YouTube had no way of telling which accounts were infringing on copyrights, it had no way of stopping them. Viacom's case collapsed due to this minor oversight, and the judge ultimately sided with YouTube, potentially sparing the media conglomerate.

To take full advantage of your brand and to maintain its goodwill, businesses should keep an eye out for counterfeiters and monitor if someone else is engaged in copyright infringement and reaping the benefits from their brand, If you own a business and come across a situation where a 3rd party is infringing on your brand image for their own products, get in touch with us at [email protected] for a complimentary consultation on how we can protect you from such thefts.

Also read our article on Copyright Guide for Freelance Writers to learn how you can avoid infringing copyrighted material.

Click on the link for more information on UAE Copyright Law .

Recent Articles

A Guide to Intellectual Property Litigation

Metaverse Development: Impacts and Implications on Intellectual Proper...

Trademark Registration in Qatar in 2024 - Complete Guide

Amazon Brand Registry in UAE: Complete Guide 2024

A Guide to Intellectual Property Protection in Biotechnology and Genet...

Blockchain Technology and Its Impact on Intellectual Property

Growing Importance of Intellectual Property in the Fashion Industry

Fair Use in Copyright: Guidelines and Examples

A Guide to Intellectual Property Arbitration

Intellectual Property and the Role of Trade Secrets

The Role of Intellectual Property in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Intellectual Property Valuation and Assessment

Beyond Patents and Trademarks: Exploring Lesser-Known Aspects of Intel...

IP Due Diligence - Importance and How to Conduct (Checklist)

Intellectual Property Protection for Artificial Intelligence

10 Landmark Intellectual Property Infringement Disputes

11 Intellectual Property Strategies for Technology Startups in 2024

5 Tips for Guarding your Company Against Intellectual Property Threats

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) Agreement

Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonogr...

Patent Registration in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)

Trademark Infringement and Enforcement in the UAE - Stay Protected

Trademark Renewal and Maintenance in the United Arab Emirates

Impact of UAE's Free Trade Agreements on Trademark Registration

Trademark Licensing and Assignment in the United Arab Emirates

The Madrid Protocol and Its Impact on International Trademark Registra...

Intellectual Property and NFTs and Business in the Metaverse

IP strategy: Grandmaster Moves to Checkmate Competitors

IP Protection for Startups: Fundraising and Investor Relations

World Intellectual Property Day 2023: Celebrating Women's Innovation a...

How the Technological Era Has Changed the Global Intellectual Property...

Belt and Road Initiative: Impact on IP in the MENA Region

Transformation of Intellectual Property in a Post-Pandemic World

Top 10 Intellectual Property Challenges Businesses Face in 2022

Trademark Registration in Saudi Arabia (KSA)

Patent Cooperation Treaty: All You Need To Know

Global Commercialization: Understanding Intellectual Property for Busi...

Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits

World Intellectual Property Day 2022: IP and Youth: Innovating for a B...

All you need to know about Non-fungible Tokens and Copyright Law

Trademark Renewals: How to Renew a Registered Trademark

Paris Convention of 1883 for the Protection of Industrial Property

How To Protect Algorithms That Enhance Businesses

ABOU NAJA Celebrates 50 Years of Intellectual Property Protection

Real and Fake in a 3D Printed World

ABOU NAJA Talks with Filmmaker and Actress Rindala Kodeih

ABOU NAJA Talks Entrepreneurship and Fitness with Maya Nassar

Complete Guide to Trademark Registration in UAE

Notable Product Designers and Designs in the Middle East

Digital Twin and its Legal Implications

Epidemic Sound: How It Affects Copyright and Intellectual Property

Protection of Plant Varieties in the Middle East

Intellectual Property Protection in the Middle East in 2021

ABOU NAJA Talks with Fashion and Street Style Photographer Lina Mo

The Importance of Derivative Works

K-pop band BTS Fuels South Korean IP Economy

IP Trends 2021: How Intellectual Property is Evolving Around Us

ABOU NAJA Talks with Fashion Designer Ahmed Fouad

Patent Registration and Regulations in the United Arab Emirates

World IP Day 2021: Taking your Ideas to Market Legally

ABOU NAJA Talks with Entrepreneur and Filmmaker Hammam Nabtiti

19 Different Ways to Protect Intellectual Property

ABOU NAJA Talks: Leila Al Aouf Talks Journalism, Podcasting, And Prote...

ABOU NAJA Proffers Robust Law Solutions: GoodFirms

ABOU NAJA Talks: Mustafa Sheikh's Career Journey and views on Copyrigh...

ABOU NAJA Talks: Rosemin Madhavji’s Take on the Fashion Industry & I...

Debunking Common Misconceptions About Intellectual Property

Importance of Protecting Intellectual Property in the Digital Age

Music Streaming and Copyright

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works

Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in the United Arab Emirate...

Intellectual Property Lawsuits and Infringements in the GCC

Intellectual Property and the World of Esports

Unfair Competition: How is it related to Trademark Infringement?

Copyright Law in the United Arab Emirates: Explained

Internet of Things: Imminent Industry Patent Wars

Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances

Misuse of Intellectual Property by Large Companies

A Complete Guide on Cybersecurity for Businesses

Protecting Intellectual Property Through Cybersecurity

The Profits in Patents: Gaining Revenues from R&D

Implications of 3D Printing in Intellectual Property

Wunderkind: Business Insights from Young CEOs

Intellectual Property for Satire and Parodies

Ways to Monetize Social Media Influence

History and Evolution of Intellectual Property

A Millennial's Guide to Building a Start-Up Business

Types of Trademarks: All You Need To Know

Ten Most Effective Ways To Fund Your Startup

8 Ways To Fight Counterfeit Sales Online

Digital Transformation: Traditional Business to Online Operations

Role of Intellectual Property in Robotics

Intellectual Property and Social Media: An Introduction

15 Steps to Start a Business that Lasts

Intellectual Property and Marketing: How Compliant Is Your Ad Campaign...

An Intro: Ambitious Inventors Turning Ideas into Patents

IP for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

World Intellectual Property Day 2020

Trade Dress: An Introduction

A Guide to Copyright for Freelance Writers

Sound Mark and Intellectual Property

Managing Intellectual Property Portfolio

UAE Reduces IP Services Fees by 25 Percent

Netflix: A Brilliant IP Junkie

PepsiCo India vs. Farmers: A Tale of David and Goliath

To Patent or Not to Patent

Michael Jordan: Icon, Legend and Innovator

7 Reasons Why Trademarks are Important for Startups

Coronavirus: An Unethical Race to Patent a Vaccine?

• Library Catalog
• eBook Collections
• Theses & Dissertations
• Course Reserves
• Research Guides
• Government Documents
• Trial Subscriptions
• Clarkson Art Collection
• Services for Students
• Services for Faculty & Staff
• Services for Distance Users
• Services for Visitors & Alumni
• Library Hours
• Checkout & Return Policies
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Using the Library
• Copyright Basics
• Open Educational Resources
• Local Libraries
• Occupational Therapy (OT)
• Physical Therapy (PT)
• Physician Assistant (PA)
• Human Anatomy
• Drug Information
• Medical Calculators
• Literature Searching
• Citation Help
• Search Journals
• All Databases
• About the Libraries
• Library History
• Jobs at the Library
• Libraries Policies
• Mission, Vision & Values
• Library Staff

University Libraries

• Main Campus Front Desk (315) 268-2292
• Ask a Librarian [email protected]
• Example Copyright Cases

Common Questions & Examples

• American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc. American Geophysical Union and 82 other publishers which sold journal subscriptions to Texaco alleged that Texaco’s employees infringed their copyrights by repeatedly photocopying individual journal articles without permission and distributing them. The court found that this was not fair use because Texaco’s actions were “part of a systematic process of encouraging employee researchers to copy articles so as to multiply available copies while avoiding payment.” The court found that employees were copying whole articles and that such copying interfered with the commercial value of the articles.
• Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko’s Kinko’s used course readings lists from colleges and, without asking permission or paying copyright fees, photocopied excerpts from assigned readings to create “course packets,” which they sold to students at a profit. The court found that this was not fair use, as it was for a commercial purpose and would harm publishers’ sales. The court also noted that there was no compelling educational reason to copy the materials without permission or paying fees.
• Camridge University Press v. Patton Cambridge University Press (and others) sued Georgia State University for infringing copyright by allowing unlicensed portions of their works to be posted on university systems for students to obtain electronically. The court found that most of the instances were fair use, and that a “holistic analysis” of each instance was required to “carefully balance” all four Fair Use factors. The court also noted that not all four factors must be given equal weight.
• Posner on Copyright – 10 Cases to Remember
• Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. Michigan Document Services, Inc., a commercial photography shop, copied significant portions of written materials that were assigned readings for University of Michigan courses. They assembled these materials into “coursepacks” offered for sale to students. The copyright owners of the materials sued. The court found that this was not Fair Use. The court pointed to the commercial nature of the business and the profit made from the coursepacks, as well as the potential damage to the market for the copyrighted works.
• Stanford University Libraries – Summaries of Fair Use Cases Summarizes a variety of Fair Use court cases, some academic and some not. Include cases where Fair Use was found, as well as cases where it was not.
• U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index An index of federal court cases court cases regarding fair use.
• Univeristy of Florida – Summary of Cases on Copyright in Education Summary of several cases involving educational arguments in a copyright dispute, including links to materials on each case such as commentary, lawyers’ arguments, and case opinions.

Can I post a PDF of a journal article the library subscribes to in my Moodle Course?

Maybe. Generally speaking, if an item meets the requirements set out under Fair Use or the TEACH Act, materials can be shared in a password protected learning management system like Moodle for a limited period of time. Factors to consider are how many students will have access to the course and how long the materials will be available, including whether it will be available for multiple semesters. More students and longer access weigh against fair use. You will need to consider the Fair Use factors to decide whether your use of the materials falls under Fair Use.

However,  even if it is considered fair use , some library database user agreements may prohibit the sharing of articles or other materials in this way, so the best practice is to link to the article in the database by using a permanent URL, rather than uploading the PDF. This will also allow students to access the most up to date version of the material.

Can I show a DVD or Blu-Ray video in my classroom?

Yes, as long as it is for classroom instruction and no admission fee is charged.

Can I show a DVD or Blu-Ray video in a non-classroom context?

Generally not, unless permission has been obtained from the copyright holder.

Can I Stream a Netflix (or other streaming service) Video in My Classroom?

If you are using a video streaming service licensed through the library or your department that is intended for that purpose, yes. You can see the options available via the library here . 

What about personal streaming services?

Netflix does allow some films to be shown in an educational context under certain conditions. See their page here for details . You can search media.netflix.com to see which films may be shown by educators.

However, make sure you are using approved films only, as most user agreements do not allow public screenings. “When one signs a license agreement, he or she often gives away certain freedoms, such as copyright exceptions. The Netflix user agreement overtly conveys “the Software is only for your own personal, non-commercial use and not for use in the operation of a business or service bureau, for profit or for the benefit or any other person or entity.” Most copyright attorneys comprehend the phrase “for your own personal… use” as giving away your statutory exceptions to use section 110(1) and even section 107 (fair use).” –  Kris Helge, Scholarly Communications Librarian at the University of North Texas. “May One Stream a Netflix Video for In-Class Use?”

If you wish to use a streaming service to show a video in your classroom, you will need to check your user agreement to see if it prohibits you from using it for a public showing.

Can I post a PDF of a journal article to my faculty website?

Probably not. If the website is available to the general public and is not password protected, this would probably not be considered a Fair Use because you cannot be sure it will only be used for academic purposes.

Can I copy articles to create a Course Pack for my students?

Probably not. Generally speaking, you need to ask copyright permission before reproducing copyrighted materials for use in a course pack. However, information in the Public Domain would be an exception.

Can I photocopy one article from a journal for my own personal use?

Yes, this would probably be considered Fair Use.

Can I make materials from the university archives publicly available online?

It depends. If the materials are still covered by copyright, it may not be possible to make the materials publicly available on-line, unless the donor has given permission. Materials need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Can I use copyrighted photos or music in my classroom presentation?

Yes, this would generally be considered a fair use of the materials if it is for instructional purposes. You should make sure you cite the original creator, however.

Can I use copyrighted materials in an open-access educational course? Can my students use copyrighted materials in an open-access project?

Probably not. Generally a distinction is made between a password protected on-line course and websites or courses that are not password protected.

Telling the truth about SME life today

Home » Advice » Business Law & Compliance » Examples of copyright infringement

Examples of copyright infringement

• August 27, 2020

Examples of copyright infringement and plagiarism are often itmes that will hit the news due to the fame of the individuals that surround it and itbeing something we can relate to. It feels like adults accusedof stealing someone else’s homework. In some cases, a lawsuit is wrapped up quickly, but there are several famous copyright cases where infringements led to protracted legal action and significant costs.

Some of the biggest copyright infringement cases have been between some of the most well-known companies in the world, including the copyright court cases listed below.

Table of Contents

Related: What is considered fair in copyrght?

1. Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica

Perhaps the most famous examples of copyright infringement is that of Battlestar Galactica, who apparently ‘borrowed’ a little too much from Star Wars.

Galactica was produced in the wake of the success of the 1977 film Star Wars. And sci-fi author Jerry Pournelle, starring on a guest panel in This Week in Teck (episode 223), explains that 20th Century Fox sued Universal Studios (the studio behind Battlestar Galactica) for copyright infringement, claiming that it had stolen 34 distinct ideas from Star Wars. Among them was a character named Skyler, a tad too close to Skywalker, and the possibility of airing with the title “Star Worlds”.

Universal Studios didn’t take this news lightly. “I agreed not to use certain effects including laser streaks from our guns,” said Galactica creator Glen Larson, who supposedly met producer Gary Kurtz to figure things out. “I always consider [the case] very unfair because we had met…and they were in agreement not to take any action.”

Furthermore, they promptly countersued, claiming Star Wars had stolen ideas from the 1972 film Silent Running (the robot drones) and the Buck Rogers serials of the 1940s,” said Pournelle. He goes on to say that after Fox was sued, he was paid $20,000 by Universal to show that Battlestar Gallactica and Star Wars were made from two different cloths. About Fildena http://valleyofthesunpharmacy.com/fildena/

In the end the case was decided in favour of Galactica two years later. Unfortunately, however, the original Battlestar Galactica had been cancelled and cinemas were looking forward to seeing The Empire Strikes Back.

2. Apple vs Microsoft

The battle between these tech giants started with a simple question: who invented the graphical user interface (GUI) The company that controls the interface of the next major operating system will have the ability to set the standards for application software, so it’s unsurprising that Apple tried to stop Windows from becoming a major operating system.

It seemed that although Microsoft helped develop Macintosh, Jean-Louis Gasse, who had taken over from Steve Jobs at the time, refused to allow Microsoft to use their software. Bill Gates pressed on nonetheless, deciding to add in features of its own to early prototypes of the Macintosh.

When Gasse noted the software, he was enraged. However, he didn’t want a lawsuit, and ended up agreeing to license the Mac’s visual displays. But Windows 2.0 turned out to be almost identical, and Gasse believed it to be a breach of contract, only having allowed their software to be used for 1.0 and not future versions.

So, without warning, Apple filed a lawsuit against Microsoft in 1988. Apples case included 189 contested visual displays that violated its copyright. This led to a six-year long battle. Tramadol 50 mg online

In 1989, the court ruled that 179 of the 189 disputed displays were covered by the existing license. Furthermore, the other ten were not violations of Apples copyright due to the merger doctrine, where the ideaexpression divide limits the scope of copyright protection by differentiating an idea from the manifestation of that idea.

The copyright lawsuit was decided in Microsofts favour on August 24, 1993.

3. James Dyson vs Hoover

What has made Dyson so successful is the use of a bagless vacuum cleaner which uses two cyclones. One removes small particles while the other collects larger items. This is the patented technology that bitter rival Hoover infringed.

According to Dyson, before him, nobody in the field had thought to sell a bagless vacuum cleaner. However, Alberto Bertali, managing director of Hoover European Appliances Group, claimed that the Triple Vortex recirculated dusty air between three cyclones and did not filter it.

A counterclaim that the Dual Cyclone’s technology was nothing that was not generally known within the industry,” was dismissed by the High Court.

Unfortunately for them the High Court ruled that Hoover had intentionally copied the technology at the heart of Dyson’s Dual Cyclone vacuum cleaner. Dyson said: Their claims that the Triple Vortex is different were shown to be completely false. Hoover showed no interest in the technology when we were looking for backers. Then they rubbished it when we brought out the bagless cleaner, insisting that bags are best. Finally they came out with a blatant copy.”

But despite Dyson’d expertise in the patent field, he failed to stop Hoover using the Vortex trademark on its bagless cleaners.

This is a famous example of copyright infringement challenge.

4. Gucci vs Guess

In 2009 Gucci sued Guess for infringing on five Gucci trademarks, including the use of similar logos. This is perhaps unsurprising given that Guess has been subject to 12 copyright complaints over the last ten years. But they have successfully managed to resolve all previous situations almost immediately… until they messed with Gucci.

Guess used many of Gucci’s distinctive marks, including a green and red stripe used on handbags, the repeating, inverted GG pattern, and the company’s use of brown and beige colours, mostly used in conjunction with diamond shape patterns.

Of course, Gucci came out on top, but not in the way they had hoped for. Initially asking for $221m in damages, the judge told Gucci they were only entitled to an accounting of profits and limited the damages. In the end, Gucci only received $4.7m.

Guess was also barred from using most of their designs ever again, primarily the Quattro G patterns in brown and beige colours and the CRG stripe.

What went wrong Gucci’s defence.

The judge concluded that Over the years, Gucci has sent out hundreds of cease and desists letters to entities ranging from national companies such as Bebe, Juicy Couture, and Williams-Sonoma, all the way to small-time infringers, such as a counterfeiter working out of her Los Angeles apartment and a rabbi in New York, who they suspected might sell counterfeit Gucci products to benefit his synagogue. When it came to Guess, they waited because the company was facing budgetary concerns due to counterfeiters.

Furthermore, the company had failed to bring non-speculative evidence to court.

5. Apple vs Google

Apple is no stranger to court, especially when it comes to Google, offering us yet another example of court review on copyright infringment. After all, there are several companies that are making phones using Google’s Android software. Steve Jobs repeatedly called the Android a “stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this.”

Apparently things got so heated between Apple and Google that former Google CEO (and current chairman) Eric Schmidt stepped down from his position on Apple’s Board of Directors.

In 2010, Apple sued Samsung. Google had to step in and help Samsung patly due to a ‘Mobile Application Distribution Agreement’. A Google lawyer revealed that the company agreed to provide partial or full indemnity with regard to four patents.

And in one of the highest-profile lawsuits in technology, Motorola sued Apple at the same time Samsung was taken to court. Motorola accused Apple of infringing several patents, which included how cellphones operated on a 3G network. On the other hand, Apple claimed that Motorola violated its patent to certain smartphone features.

The copyright case was dismissed in 2012, the year that Google acquired Motorola, on grounds that neither company had sufficient evidence. In fact, frustrated judges have thrown the Apple vs Motorola out of court three times, telling them to solve their problems between themselves.

Although Apple hasn’t attacked Google, probably due to the fact that Google provides a variety of iOS software. Instead, the company chooses to go for the company selling Android devices, but it seem that the search giant is intent on defending Android.

In 2014, Apple and Google released a joint statement saying that they have agreed to settle all patent litigation between them and that they will also work together in some areas of patent reform .

6. A&M Records vs. Napster

For those who don’t remember, Napster was a popular peer-to-peer file sharing network that launched in 1999. It had an amazingly large fan-base of music lovers who shared mp3s.

However, two years later the company was involved in a joint lawsuit filed by various record companies.

They didn’t like the large-scale distribution of their music for free, and so sued the company for infringement on their intellectual property. This is what makes this case one of the most famous copyright infringement cases in history.

The court ruled against Napster and the company was forced to shut down the site after making a public apology and paying $26m in damages. It was their lack of effort to reduce infringement, mixed with the fact that the company financially benefitted from it that set the decision in stone.

This article was originally published on 11 August 2014.

• April 23, 2024

How Long Can Employees Be Signed Off Work With Stress?

• April 16, 2024

Your Guide To Break Entitlement For 4 Hour Shift UK

What Does An Improving Economy Have In Store For SMEs In 2024?

• April 15, 2024

How Long Does It Take For HMRC Tax Refund To Go Into Bank?

• Business Law & Compliance

Related Stories

How Long Can Employees Be On Sick Leave Before Dismissal?

Why Businesses Need To Partner With Local Education Providers To Develop Relationships For Future Top Talent Recruitment

Redeemable Shares Explained

What Is A Limited Company Strike Off?

How To Resign As A Director Of A Company

What is a Shareholders Agreement?

External v Internal Finance Sources

Advantages & Disadvantages Of Swot Analysis

The Ultimate Guide to Sole Trader Bookkeeping 

What Is Conscious Business & How Can We Cultivate It?

What Is The Flat Rate Scheme And Its Percentages

Taking Holidays As A Freelancer

How to Start an Etsy Shop – Everything You Need to Know

What is Business Administration?

How to Write a Freelance Contract

10 Most Popular Ways to Promote Your Business

Qualities of a Good Team Leader

Funding Female-Led Businesses: The Way Forward

What Does Your Business Branding Say About You?

Menopause in the Workplace: Conclusions from WEC Report 2022

How Personalisation Can Improve the Employee Experience

Why Your Web Host Matters: Is It The Key To Improving SME Site Performance?

Three Tips for Success When Starting Your New Position as a Team Manager

How to Mold Top-Performing Employees

Smart1 Recruitment: Going the Extra Mile with Mike Harper

Why Personal Experience is the Key to Tech Launch Success

Investing in Well-being to Stem the Tides of the Great Resignation

Planning for the Future: 5 Tips for Building a Robust Financial Forecast

5 Types of Sales Enablement Content You Need for Your Business (and Tips on How to Create It)

How to Grow Your Business Organically

Drive to De-Risk and Crystallise Value Spurs Interest in ‘Cash-Out’ Opportunities

Work Perks: Why Your Business Should Say Goodbye to the Free Gym Membership

Celebrating British Excellence with Sarah Austin

Has Remote Working Changed B2B Purchasing Forever?

Out with the Old, In with the New: How Digital Agreements Redefine the Present of Work

Pitch Deck Design Trends and Top Tips for Making Your Pitch Deck Stand Out

Super Apps are the Way Forward for Modern Parents: Interviewing the Creator of Onoco

Financial and Funding Business Contingency Planning with Kevin Harfield – MD JamesField Executive Limited

Google Launches New Core Update: What This Means for Businesses

Why Firms Can See the Global Supply Chain Crisis as an Opportunity

Does your Business have what it takes to win at The Lloyds Bank British Business Excellence Awards?

Tackling Inflation As An SME: 5 Strategies For Corporate Success

How to find Inner Safety, Sleep Well and Increase Energy and Performance

Preventing a Wage Spiral: How to Balance Talent Retention and Recruitment Post-Pandemic

How To Beat Loneliness In The Workplace

How To Get Started In Property Investment

Conquering Dragons’ Den with cheesegeek Founder, Edward Hancock

How Small Businesses Can Capitalise on Demographic Changes

Lessons from the tv world: the link between developing tv shows and new businesses.

Branded Content Can Be Key To Protecting Your Reputation

Elon Musk Buys Twitter: What Does it Mean for SMEs?

Eskimoz Conquers the European SEO Market

“Inspire your team to excellence”: Interview with Marie Grove Walton

TikTok for Business: How to Market to Millions

How Has COP26 Affected The Corporate Sector Six Months Later?

What Happens if Britain’s Backbone Breaks?

It’s Time Businesses Reboot Their Employee Wellbeing Experience Tools

The Formula for High Fashion: How Sunglasses Deals Became Big Business for the F1 Industry

Should Employers Provide Workers Access to Mental Health Services?

The Best Tools for Creative Freelancers

The Chancellor’s Spring Statement 2022: The Summary

Is Your Brand a Great Design Story in the Making?

Opening of GOV G-Cloud 13 Framework Means Huge Opportunities for SMEs

Lewis Hamilton: Lessons in Resilience and Determination

Adopting a People First Approach to Technology

Women-Led Businesses You Should Be Paying Attention To

Litalist: Building a Community Between Book Lovers and Booksellers

Breaking into the Publishing Industry? Start Your Own Crowdfunded Publisher

Marketing Strategies in a Technology-Driven Age

Business Leaders Are Under Unprecedented Pressure – But Have Unprecedented Opportunities

Productivity Wars: How Managers Can Re-Inspire Their Teams

Russian Invasion of Ukraine Threatens Global Economy Amid Massive Recession

Queer-owned Small Businesses: How To Celebrate LGBTQ+ History Month And People All Year Round

“Creators aren’t aspirational dreamers, they’re a critical part of the economy,” says Lotanna Ezeike, Founder and CEO, XPO

Why Parental Leave Isn’t the Issue for Young Professionals

With Love – Taking the Opportunity to Care for Your Staff on Valentine’s Day

Oldest Pair Breaks Record Rowing Talisker Whiskey Atlantic Challenge

Creating Skincare Brands for the TikTok Generation with Tiffany Salmon

How to Surmount Your Self-Doubt as an SME Entrepreneur

Social First, CV Second: How Gen Z is Changing the Hiring Process

Ocean Club Holidays: Vertically Integrated, Organically Grown

Private Capital Could Help Drive SMEs Forward on the Road to Recovery

Covid Rules To Be Lifted In England Over The Next Week

Pioneering Adtech Company Keeps TV Advertisers Informed and Adaptable

The New Year: The New Loyalty and Rewards Strategy

What Business Owners Need to Know about Workplace Mental Health Support

Are Print Magazines Still Viable in our Increasingly Digital Lifestyles?

How to Make the Most Out of the New Year

Why Emotional Intelligence is Key to Successful Conscious Leadership

Ways to Avoid Burnout as a Freelancer

3 Easy Ways to Simplify Your Small Business For Streamlined Success

Elizabeth Holmes Found Guilty of Fraud in Theranos Case

There’s Bias in Burnout, and Things Need to Change

Is There a Correlation Between How You Sleep and How You Work?

Fashion’s Plagiarism Habit and The Impact on Small Brands

Living the Laptop Lifestyle with Social Cactus

The Competition to Create the Best Christmas TV Advert

Some Businesses Won’t Survive This Christmas Under New Omicron Restrictions

Putting Cyber Security First: Why the Latest Trends make this Critical for SMEs

Finding the Perfect Gift: Interview with Louise Doyle and Steph Scholes

How Innovation is Driving New Sustainability Goals

How your SME can capitalise on the Festive Season

Narce Media: Video is the Ultimate Content Currency

A Chanel Christmas Story: How Important Are Customer Perceptions of Value for Money?

Starting Out in a New Market

Lush Exit: Can Brands Survive Without Social Media?

Introducing the Entrepreneur Who Has Banished Leathers for Making Timeless Sustainable Accessories

Increasing E-Commerce Sales with Website Analysis Insights

6 Tips for Selling your Business

Cybersecurity Business Leading the Charge Against Business Threats

“Diversity of thought” – Why it’s Crucial to Business Success

Did COP26 Inspire Business Sustainability Or Just Encourage A Future Of ‘Greenwashing’?

“The Entrepreneur Ship” Takes on the Talisker Rowing Challenge

What Lidl’s Pay Rise Shows Us About the Competition for Staff?

Speaking your Mind as an Introvert in the Workplace

Wonsulting and TikTok Resumes: Revolutionising Recruitment for the Future

The Rising Wages Impact on Small Businesses

Black Friday Success: Ditch the Discounts and Get Creative

UK property prices update: Areas of unexpected growth

UK businesses admit to having lost data on more than one occassion

Charlie Mullins: Age ain’t nothing but a number when it comes to older workers

How to keep cash flow positive

Cyber security: Where’s the business case for a budget?

The rise of David Camerons business power women

Uk google fiber is still only a dream, so we’re potentially stuck with bt’s monopoly for some time to come.

The “financial entrepreneur” with Lotus Cars, Wayra and Brightpearl on his CV

Waitrose to create 2,000 British jobs across the UK in 2015

Export push brings importance of intellectual property protection to the surface

More from business law & compliance, asda case significant for employers providing different wages to their workforce.

How Brexit is likely to alter UK employment law

Don’t fall foul of gender reassignment discrimination like primark.

Failing to prevent bribery could cost you more than reputation

Considerations for bosses hoping to keep their sam allardyce on the right side of the law, how to deal with the conor mcgregors of the business world.

Six companies that avoid paying their taxes

Plans to tackle excessive executive pay “feeble” and “watered down”.

When a GDPR consent email isn’t compliant with the new rules

Is It Illegal to Work Without a Contract in the UK

How to open a shop in the UK? What you need to know for a successful launch

How to offer finance to your customers in the UK

Advantages of proprietary software – Is it right for your business?

EORI Numbers: The Ultimate Guide

Why Perfection is the Enemy of Progress for Entrepreneurs

Do employers have to pay shift allowance?

If you enjoyed this article, why not join our newsletter?

We promise only quality content, tailored to suit what our readers like to see!

Published by Prosper 2 Media

Do you want to write for us click here to find out how.

Real Business has championed entrepreneurship in the UK since 1997. It is now the main source of inspiration, education, and collaboration for the owners of fast-growing businesses, from startups to mid-market companies. Real Business provides readers with high profile interviews, news, insight and industry benchmark reports, as well as a growing stable of events tailored to SME growth.

Privacy Policy

Privacy Overview

Top 5 Copyright Cases of 2019 in India

Top 5 Copyright Cases in 2019

1. sajeev pillai v. venukunnapalli & anr.

Does the author of work, even after the assignment of work, have special rights to claim authorship of his work provided under Section 57(1) of the Copyright Act?

The appellant, Sajeev Pillai, a film director, and a scriptwriter, claimed to have researched the history of the grand festival Mamankam and prepared a script for a movie based on the same epic. He met VenuKunnapalli and signed an MoU with Kavya Film Company which was associated with Kunnapalli. Sajeev was initially appointed as the director, but his service was terminated and replaced by someone else. The movie’s shooting was after that completed, which Sajeev alleged was done by mutilating, distorting, and modifying his script. Sajeev, in light of that, filed a suit seeking various reliefs. An interim injunction application was filed to restrain the respondents from releasing, publishing, distributing, and exploiting the film and issuing pre-release publicity without providing good authorship credits to Pillai as per film industry standards.

In deciding the issue, the Court noted that the first sub-section of Section 57(1) provides the author to restrain third parties. The second sub-section provides the author the entitlement to claim damages by such a third party for any distortion, mutilation, or other modifications to his work or any other action that would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. This provided the appellant an unparalleled advantage in the case and that his copyright assignment of the work would not exhaust the legal right to claim authorship over it.

2. Tips Industries v Wynk Music

Does a statutory licensing scheme exist under the Copyright Act for online streaming services?

Background: The dispute centers around section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957, which provides for a statutory licensing scheme, whereby any ‘broadcasting organization’ desirous of ‘communicating to the public’ any sound recording can obtain a statutory license to do so provided they pay royalty rates to the copyright owners at rates fixed by the Intellectual Property Law Board.

Tips Industries Ltd (Plaintiff) is an Indian music label that exercises copyright over a significant music repository that, in 2016, granted Wynk Music Ltd (Defendant) a license to access this music repository. At the expiry of the said license, both parties attempted to renegotiate the licensing conditions. Still, they failed to do so; hence, Wynk took refuge by invoking Section 31D of the Copyright Act. Tips challenged Wynk’s invocation of Section 31D and prosecuted Wynk according to Section 14(1)(e) for breach of their exclusive sound recording rights.

After hearing the contentions of both parties, the Bombay High Court found Wynk guilty of direct infringement on two counts – 1. To offer the copyrighted work under section 14(1) (e) (ii), which allowed the users to download and listen to the plaintiff’s work offline, and 2. Under section 14(1) (e) (iii) for communicating the plaintiff’s works to the users via their streaming service.

In addition to that, the Bombay High Court sought this opportunity to clear out the air regarding the ambiguity that existed concerning online streaming services falling within the scope of Section 31D:

1. Under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, the’ Download / Purchase ‘ of copyrighted works is not covered.

Wynk Music allowed the users to download and store copyrighted music for unlimited future use, which is instituted to be a ‘sale’ and not ‘communication made to the public,’ which constitutes a ‘broadcast’ for Section 31D. Hence, there is no claim for a statutory license for using such copyrighted work by Wynk Music.

2. The application of Section 31D of the Copyright Act does not include Internet broadcasting.

The defendant’s case was based primarily on the presumption that Section 31D covered Internet streaming services under’ radio broadcasting’ as described in a 2016 DPIIT office circular, given that’ radio broadcasting’ included’ internet broadcasting’ under Section 31D.

The Court had an opposing view which resulted in the rejection of the interpretation put forth by the defendant.

The Court found Section 31D to be an exception to copyright, which should only be strictly interpreted. Upon careful examination of the statutory scheme of 31D and the rules accompanying it, it becomes apparent that statutory licensing was intended only to cover radio and television broadcasting and not internet broadcasting. After examining the history associated with Section 31D, the Court derived that, despite the global existence of internet streaming services when the Section was inserted through an Amendment Act of 2012, the legislation, even though aware of it, omitted to include internet streaming services from the ambit of Section 31D.

In addition, the memorandum presented by the defendant does not contain any additional weightage of their claim as a memorandum only acts as ‘guidelines’ and lacks statutory authority and therefore has no influence to the extent of their claim.

The judgment was passed in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction, having regard to the reality that they had made a prima facie case, and would suffer irreparable harm in the way of lost revenue.

3. Raj Rewal v Union of India &Ors

Whether an Architect, as the creator and legally the ‘author’ of a structure, has a right vested in him to object to such modification or demolition of their work by the owner of the building?

Background: The dispute centers around section 57 of the Copyright Act 1957, under which the plaintiff has filed for a mandatory injunction to reinstate the building according to the original plans. Section 57 of the Copyright Act 1957 provides the author with special rights called ‘moral rights,’ which exists with the author of the work over and above the economic rights of others.

The present case concerns Mr. Raj Rewal, who designed and Mr. Mahendra Raj, who was the structural designer of the Hall of Nations building. The said building was hailed as an icon of modernist Indian architecture and was erected on the Pragati Maidan grounds in New Delhi. The ITPO, in 2016, proposed to demolish the Hall of Nations complex to build an ‘Integrated Exhibition cum Convention Centre.’ Despite several attempts made by Plaintiff to protect the building from demolition, it resulted in what ITPO desired. Post demolition of the building, Plaintiff instituted a suit against the actions of ITPO by claiming that the acts of demolition had derogated Plaintiff’s special rights under Section 57.

Rejecting the plaintiff’s claims, the Court framed the issue as a conflict of two different rights: the architect’s rights under Section 57 and the landowner’s rights to practice acts about their property.

The Court observed that the plaintiff, in this case, cannot be allowed to prevent the demolition of the building by the defendant as it would, in turn, amount to a restriction of the defendant’s right to practice their control over their property and land which is provided to them under Article 300A which is a constitutional right which prevails over the statutory rights of the plaintiff which they claim to exist under Section 57 of Copyright Act, 1957.

The Court further states that the author’s right under Section 57 to prohibit ‘distortion, mutilation or modification of his work does not permit an author to prevent the destruction of their work since “that what cannot be viewed, seen, heard or felt, cannot be imperfect and cannot affect the honor or reputation of the author.”

Therefore, the extent to which the right vested in the architect extends is to prevent the building owner from refraining from making changes in the design made by the architect and passing it off as if the architect made the design.

Further, the Court also relied upon Section 52(1)(x), an exception to the architect’s copyright. The Court reasoned that the ‘reconstruction’ envisaged under Section 52(1)(x) could only occur if the building had already been demolished. Noting that the Copyright Act must be read harmoniously, the Court stated that Section 57 could not reasonably contemplate the right to object to demolishing a building.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the suit due to a lack of cause of action against the demolition of the Hall of Nations.

4. YRF v Sri Sai Ganesh Productions

Whether copyright can exist in a cinematography film independent of the underlying works that it is comprised of? 2. Does the expression under section 14 to ‘make a copy of the film’ mean making a physical copy only? And between the two films, is there a substantial and material similarity?

A copyright infringement suit was filed against Sri Sai Ganesh Productions &Ors by Yash Raj Films Pvt Ltd on the grounds that it blatantly copied the movie Band Baja Baarat produced under the YRF banner and producing Jabardasht which showcased substantial and material similarities in terms of theme, concept, plot, character, sketches, story, script, form and expression amongst other things.

The Court, while determining the first issue, relied on the judgment handed down by the Delhi High Court in the case of MRF Limited v. Metro Tyres Ltd, in which the Court held that copyright exists in the ‘cinematographic film’ independent from other underlying works that come together to constitute it and that there is a requirement of originality to exist in ‘cinematographic films’ which can be read into from Section 13(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957 through Sections 13(3)(a) and 2(d) of the said Act even though it has not been explicitly mentioned.

The Court, while determining the second issue, held that the expression ‘to make a copy of the film’ provided in Section 14(d)(i) of the said Act does not simply mean creating a physical copy of the film by process of duplication. Furthermore, as the movie are protected just like original works , the Court extended the test of originality set out in the case of R.G Anand v. Deluxe Films to distinguish between the two films based on ‘substance, foundation, and kernal’ and understand the viewpoint of an average moviegoer as to whether they would have an unmistakable impression that one work was a copy of the other.

In the instant case, the Court found that the defendants had blatantly copied the plaintiff’s film’s fundamental, essential, and distinctive features.

5. UTV Software Communication Ltd., v.1337X.TO and Ors

How should the Court deal with the hydra-headed ‘Rogue Websites’ which, on being blocked, eventually multiply and resurface as redirect or mirror or alphanumeric websites?

UTV Software Communications Ltd (Plaintiff)., is one such company engaged in creating, producing, and distributing cinematographic content worldwide. The plaintiff has brought a suit against thirty identified websites , multiple John Doe defendants, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Dept of Telecom, and various ISPs. The plaintiff’s contention was based on the fact that the defendant’s websites host and provide access to their copyrighted content which infringes their rights derived from the Copyright Act 1957.

The plaintiffs provided access to a sample of such infringing content as evidence that the websites were primarily engaging in online piracy. Most websites did not respond to the summons because they were hosted outside India. Due to that, an amicus curia was appointed in their place as the issue was about to be a question of law of general public importance.

The most notable contribution this case made was that it introduced a new procedure to extend website blocking injunctions beyond those specified in the court order but also to those websites which are ‘mirror/alphanumeric/redirect’ websites created after the Court already passed the injunction order. This extension was termed a ‘dynamic injunction.’ Singapore High Court’s decision in Disney v M1 was referred by the High Court of Delhi while deciding on the issue where their Court introduced the concept of ‘dynamic injunction’ whereby a plaintiff could file an additional affidavit stating to the Court why a new website fell within the purview of an existing blocking order and forwarding the same to an ISP, which could dispute the merits of the blocking order. This process would help curtail piracy by such ‘Rogue Websites’ and reduce the burden on the copyright owners to go through the challenging route of litigation over and again.

Most Viewed Posts

• Patent Filing Procedure and Process in India – An Exclusive Guide
• 5 Step Trademark Registration Process in India
• What is Trademark and Types of Trademarks
• Understand Trademark Application Status [The Definitive Guide]
• Trademark Certificate in India

Recent Posts

Get in touch, related posts.

In today’s digital age, the surge in content streaming has dramatically altered how we consume media by offering ease of…

Introduction The New York Times, one of the most respected news organizations, has taken legal action against OpenAI and Microsoft,…

Introduction With the explosion of the internet in the early 2000s, dissemination of information is easier, all the more convenient,…

Trending News

Related Practices & Jurisdictions

• Intellectual Property
• Litigation / Trial Practice
• 10th Circuit (incl. bankruptcy)

In a case that pitted two sellers of construction equipment against each other —  I Dig Texas, LLC v. Creager  — the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit was tasked with excavating the truth behind claims of false advertising and copyright infringement. The court had to dig deep to determine whether there was a solid foundation for the allegations that I Dig Texas had built its profits on the back of Creager’s copyrighted photographs and whether I Dig Texas’s “Made in the USA” claims were as sturdy as the skid steer attachments they sold.

I Dig Texas used copyrighted photographs of Creager’s products — which were made in China — in its advertisements. These advertisements stated I Dig Texas’s products were made in the United States and encouraged consumers to purchase its skid steer attachments rather than Creager’s foreign-made attachments.

I Dig Texas filed a lawsuit against Creager Services in state court, asserting several state-law claims. In response, Creager filed counterclaims, including federal claims for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act and false advertising and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, as well as state-law claims. The case was removed to federal court.

Creager argued that I Dig Texas infringed on its copyrights by using photographs of Creager’s products and sought only actual damages. To recover profits from the alleged infringement, Creager needed to prove a connection between I Dig Texas’s use of the copyrighted images and any profits earned. The court found that Creager failed to provide evidence linking I Dig Texas’s use of the photographs to any increase in profits. Consequently, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of I Dig Texas on the copyright infringement claim.

Regarding the Lanham Act claims, Creager contended that I Dig Texas’s advertisements misrepresented the origin of its products by stating they were made in the United States. However, the court determined that the advertisements were ambiguous because they could refer to  either  the origin of the components  or  the assembly location of the final product. Since some of I Dig Texas’s products were  assembled  in the United States, even if they contained foreign components, the court found that the advertisements were not literally false. Likewise, the court ruled that the use of patriotic symbols in the advertisements was ambiguous and could not render them literally false.

The Key Takeaways

• To prove copyright infringement and recover the infringer’s profits in the Tenth Circuit, a plaintiff must establish a  clear connection  between the defendant’s use of the copyrighted material and any profits earned.
• Under the Lanham Act, advertisements claiming a product is “made in the USA” or “American-made” — or using patriotic symbols — cannot be considered literally false if they are determined to be ambiguous. If a product is assembled in the United States but contains foreign components, the Tenth Circuit considers the claim ambiguous because it could refer to either the origin of the components or the assembly location.

This decision highlights a somewhat counterintuitive result in the application of the Lanham Act to false advertising claims. While businesses are generally advised to craft clear and unambiguous advertising language to avoid potential legal issues, in this case, the ambiguity in I Dig Texas’s advertisements actually worked in its favor. By using language that could be interpreted in multiple ways, I Dig Texas avoided a finding of literal falsity under the Lanham Act.

Listen to this post

Current legal analysis, more from bradley arant boult cummings llp, upcoming legal education events.

Sign Up for e-NewsBulletins

• Popular Courses
• GST Live Course
• More classes
• More Courses

Case Study: Copyright Act 1957

The plaintiff, Radio Today Broadcasting Ltd. (RTB), wished to run a radio station on the FM band, known as ''Radio Today'', and intended to play both film and non-film songs on their radio station. They paid licence fees to the producers of the film and non-film songs, who were members of Phonographic Performance Limited (PPL).

However, they did not intend to pay any royalties to the lyricists, composers and other artists,who were members of the Indian Performing Rights Society (IPRS),the defendant. The defendant threatened the plaintiff with violation of copyright law if the songs were played on their radio station, and the plaintiff filed the instant action claiming protection under section 60 of the Copyright Act 1957.

The plaintiff filed the present suit to seek an injunction against the continuance of threats of infringement, and the defendant filed a counterclaim alleging copyright infringement by the plaintiff.

The issue before the High Court of Calcutta was whether the plaintiff radio station was obliged to pay any royalty and/or licence fees to IPRS for the songs broadcasted through its radio station in addition to the licence fees paid to PPL, a society of producers.

The court held, following the Supreme Court decision in IPRS v. Eastern IndianMotion Pictures Association (EIMPA) that though the right of a composer or lyricist in respect of a song that was put into the sound track of a film was ''extinguished'' when he was paid, he could nonetheless still claim copyright in his song and reserve his right to assign it to others for commercial exploitation of his work in other modes if there was an express agreement between him and the producer of the film reserving his copyright.

In the present case, the plaintiff radio station did not contend that the IPRS members had assigned their exclusive rights to the producers by agreement. The court held that unless it was shown that these exclusive rights of the IPRS members were expressly assigned in favour of the members of PPL, IPRS was entitled to claim royalties from the plaintiff if it wanted to exploit the work by broadcasting the songs on its proposed radio station.

This decision is noteworthy for it affirmed, following the Supreme Court decision in IPRS v. EIMPA, the separate nature of the authorship rights of composers and lyricists in their musical compositions, and the derivative rights of producers in the sound tracks of their movies. It resolved the misunderstanding that the Indian composers' and lyricists' as authors could not licence their songs for use with other media once they were assimilated into the producers' films as sound tracks. On th efacts, the plaintiff radio broadcaster was held to require licences from both IPRS(representing the composers and lyricists) as well as PPL (representing the producers of both ''film'' and ''non-film'' songs) in order to secure permission to broadcast all the songs on their radio station. With the liberalization of the broadcasting industry by the Indian government since October 1999 to grant licences for private FM stations to provide entertainment-related broadcasting services, this decision affirmed the necessity for FM broadcasters to seek both IPRS and PPL licences for the broadcast of music (songs) and pay royalties to both.

(a) Discuss briefly the relevant provision of the Copyright Act dealing with the Statutory Licence for Broadcasting of Literary and Musical Works and SoundRecording. (b) Explain whether the plaintiff was legally right or wrong. (c) As per Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957, discuss whether plaintiff was eligible to get remedy in this case. (d) Discuss the relevant provision of the Copyright Act dealing with the 'assignment of copyright'. What was observed by the Court in this regard?

APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

Section 31d of copyrights act, 1957.

Statutory licence for broadcasting of literary and musical works and sound recording.— (1) Any broadcasting organisation desirous of communicating to the public by way of a broadcast or by way of performance of a literary or musical work and sound recording which has already been published may do so subject to the provisions of this section.

(2) The broadcasting organisation shall give prior notice, in such manner as may be prescribed, of its intention to broadcast the work stating the duration and territorial coverage of the broadcast, and shall pay to the owner of rights in each work royalties in the manner and at the rate fixed by the Appellate Board. (3) The rates of royalties for radio broadcasting shall be different from television broadcasting and the Appellate Board shall fix separate rates for radio broadcasting and television broadcasting.

(4) In fixing the manner and the rate of royalty under sub-section (2), the Appellate Board may require the broadcasting organisation to pay an advance to the owners of rights.

(5) The names of the authors and the principal performers of the work shall, except in case of the broadcasting organisation communicating such work by way of performance, be announced with the broadcast.

(6) No fresh alteration to any literary or musical work, which is not technically necessary for the purpose of broadcasting, other than shortening the work for convenience of broadcast, shall be made without the consent of the owners of rights.

(7) The broadcasting organisation shall— (a) maintain such records and books of account, and render to the owners of rights such reports and accounts; and

(b) allow the owner of rights or his duly authorised agent or representative to inspect all records and books of account relating to such broadcast, in such manner as may be prescribed.

(8) Nothing in this section shall affect the operation of any licence issued or any agreement entered into before the commencement of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012.

SECTION 60 OF THE COPYRIGHTS ACT, 1957

Remedy in the case of groundless threat of legal proceedings.

Where any person claiming to be the owner of copyright in any work, by circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens any other person with any legal proceedings or liability in respect of an alleged infringement of the copyright, any person aggrieved thereby may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), institute a declaratory suit that the alleged infringement to which the threats related was not in fact an infringement of any legal rights of the person making such threats and may in any such suit

Where any person claiming to be the owner of copyright in any work, by circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens any other person with any legal proceedings or liability in respect of an alleged infringement of the copyright, any person aggrieved thereby may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), institute a declaratory suit that the alleged infringement to which the threats related was not in fact an infringement of any legal rights of the person making such threats and may in any such suit—"

(a) obtain an injunction against the continuance of such threats; and (b) recover such damages, if any, as he has sustained by reason of such threats:

Provided that this section does not apply if the person making such threats, with due diligence, commences and prosecutes an action for infringement of the copyright claimed by him.

SECTION 17 OF THE COPYRIGHTS ACT, 2017

First owner of copyright.

Subject to the provisions of this Act, the author of a work shall be the first owner of the copyright therein:

Provided that—

(a) in the case of a literary, dramatic or artistic work made by the author in the course of his employment by the proprietor of a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical under a contract of service or apprenticeship, for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, the said proprietor shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright in the work in so far as the copyright relates to the publication of the work in any newspaper, magazine or similar periodical, or to the reproduction of the work for the purpose of its being so published, but in all other respects the author shall be the first owner of the copyright in the work;

(b) subject to the provisions of clause (a), in the case of a photograph taken, or a painting or portrait drawn, or an engraving or a cinematograph film made, for valuable consideration at the instance of any person, such person shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;

(c) in the case of a work made in the course of the author's employment under a contract of service or apprenticeship, to which clause (a) or clause (b) does not apply, the employer shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;

(cc) in the case of any address or speech delivered in public, the person who has delivered such address or speech or if such person has delivered such address or speech on behalf of any other person, such other person shall be the first owner of the copyright therein notwithstanding that the person who delivers such address or speech, or, as the case may be, the person on whose behalf such address or speech is delivered, is employed by any other person who arranges such address or speech or on whose behalf or premises such address or speech is delivered;

(d) in the case of a Government work, Government shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein;

(dd) in the case of a work made or first published by or under the direction or control of any public undertaking, such public undertaking shall, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary, be the first owner of the copyright therein.

Explanation.— For the purposes of this clause and section 28A, "public undertaking" means

(i) an undertaking owned or controlled by Government; or (ii) a Government company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956);or (iii) a body corporate established by or under any Central, Provincial or State Act;]

(e) in the case of a work to which the provisions of section 41 apply, the international organization concerned shall be the first owner of the copyright therein.

Provided that in case of any work incorporated in a cinematograph work, nothing contained in clauses (b) and (c) shall affect the right of the author in the work referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 13.

SECTION 18 OF THE COPYRIGHTS ACT, 1957

ASSIGNMENT OF COPYRIGHT

(1) The owner of the copyright in an existing work or the prospective owner of the copyright in a future work may assign to any person the copyright either wholly or partially and either generally or subject to limitations and either for the whole term of the copyright or any part thereof:

Provided that in the case of the assignment of copyright in any future work, the assignment shall take effect only when the work comes into existence.

Provided further that no such assignment shall be applied to any medium or mode of exploitation of the work which did not exist or was not in commercial use at the time when the assignment was made, unless the assignment specifically referred to such medium or mode of exploitation of the work:

Provided also that the author of the literary or musical work included in a cinematograph film shall not assign or waive the right to receive royalties to be shared on an equal basis with the assignee of copyright for the utilization of such work in any form other than for the communication to the public of the work along with the cinematograph film in a cinema hall, except to the legal heirs of the authors or to a copyright society for collection and distribution and any agreement to contrary shall be void:

Provided also that the author of the literary or musical work included in the sound recording but not forming part of any cinematograph film shall not assign or waive the right to receive royalties to be shared on an equal basis with the assignee of copyright for any utilization of such work except to the legal heirs of the authors or to a collecting society for collection and distribution and any assignment to the contrary shall be void.

(2) Where the assignee of a copyright becomes entitled to any right comprised in the copyright, the assignee as respects the rights so assigned, and the assignor as respects the rights not assigned, shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as the owner of copyright and the provisions of this Act shall have effect accordingly.

(3) In this section, the expression "assignee” as respects the assignment of the copyright in any future work includes the legal representatives of the assignee, if the assignee dies before the work comes into existence.

Answer 1(a)

Section 31D of Copyrights Act, 1957 deals with the statutory licence for 10 marks broadcasting of literary and musical works and sound recording. According to this Section:

(1) Any broadcasting organisation desirous of communicating to the public by way of a broadcast or by way of performance of a literary or musical work and sound recording which has already been published may do so subject to the provisions of this section.

(2) The broadcasting organisation shall give prior notice, in such manner as may be prescribed, of its intention to broadcast the work stating the duration and territorial coverage of the broadcast, and shall pay to the owner of rights in each work royalties in the manner and at the rate fixed by the Appellate Board.

(3) The rates of royalties for radio broadcasting shall be different from television broadcasting and the Appellate Board shall fix separate rates for radio broadcasting and television broadcasting. (4) In fixing the manner and the rate of royalty under sub-section (2), the AppellateBoard may require the broadcasting organisation to pay an advance to the owners of rights.

(5) The names of the authors and the principal performers of the work shall, except in the case of the broadcasting organisation communicating such work by way of performance, be announced with the broadcast.

(6) No fresh alteration to any literary or musical work, which is not technically necessary for the purpose of broadcasting, other than shortening the work for the convenience of broadcast, shall be made without the consent of the owners of rights.

(7) The broadcasting organisation shall maintain such records and books of account, and render to the owners of rights such reports and accounts.

Answer 1(b)

Whether the Plaintiff was legally right or wrong As per the prevailing circumstances, the plaintiff (RTB) was legally wrong.

The Supreme Court ruling in IPRS v. EIMPA case stated that though the right of a composer or lyricist in respect of a song that was put into the sound track of a film was "extinguished” when he was paid, he could however still claim copyright in his song and reserve his right to assign it to others for commercial exploitation of his work in other modes if there was an express agreement between him and the producer of the film reserving his copyright. This judgement went in favour of lyricists, composers and other artists, who were the members of the IPRS, the defendant in this case. Also, the plaintiff did not contend that the IPRS members had assigned their exclusive rights to the producers by agreement. The court held that unless it was shown that these exclusive rights of the IPRS members were expressly assigned in favour of the members of PPL, IPRS was entitled to claim royalties from the plaintiff if it wanted to exploit the work by broadcasting the songs on its proposed radio station.

Answer 1(c)

Whether the plaintiff was eligible to get a remedy.

Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957 deals with a remedy in the case of groundless threat of legal proceedings — where any person claiming to be the owner of copyright in any work, by circulars, advertisements or otherwise, threatens any other person with any legal proceedings or liability in respect of an alleged infringement of the copyright,any person aggrieved thereby may, notwithstanding anything contained in section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, institute a declaratory suit that the alleged infringement to which the threats related was not in fact an infringement of any legal rights of the person making such threats and may in any such suit –

(a) obtain an injunction against the continuance of such threats; and (b) recover such damages, if any, as he has sustained by reason of such threats.

However, this section shall not apply if the person making such threats, with due diligence, commences and prosecutes an action for infringement of the copyright claimed by him. In the present case, the defendant (IPRS) allegedly intimidated the plaintiff(RTB) to pay a royalty. But this was considered by the Court legal because the alleged intimidation was supported by reasonable grounds. Hence, the plaintiff was not entitled to get remedy in this case as per Section 60.

Section relating to 'assignment of copyright and the Court observations

Section 18 of the Copyright Act provides that the owner of the Copyright in an existing work or the prospective owner of the Copyright in a future work may assign to any person copyright. In both cases the assignment may be made of the copyright either wholly or partially and generally or subject to limitations and that too for the whole period of copyright or part thereof. However, in case of assignment of copyright in any future work, the assignment has a real effect only when the work comes into existence.

If a work is done by an author for consideration for a publisher, the copyright in it would normally vest in the publisher subject to any contract to the contrary, as is provided by Section 17 of the said Act.

Secondly as provided by Section 18, the copyright could be assigned, and if it is so done it would be vested in the purchaser. In the present case, the plaintiff radio station did not contend that the IPRS members had assigned their exclusive rights to the producers by agreement.

The court held that unless it was shown that these exclusive rights of the IPRSmembers were expressly assigned in favour of the members of PPL, IPRS was entitled to claim royalties from the plaintiff if it wanted to exploit the work by broadcasting the songs on its proposed radio station.

DISCLAIMER: The case study presented here is only for sharing information with the readers. The views are personal, shall not be considered as advice. In case of necessity do consult with professionals for more clarity and understanding on subject matter.

Published by

FCS Deepak Pratap Singh (Manager Compliance -SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.) Category Corporate Law   Report

Related Articles

Popular articles.

• Filing ITR is Mandatory despite Income below Exemption Limit
• Know the Cash Transaction limit for FY 2024-25 or else penalty may be imposed by the IT Department
• Capital Gain Tax on Shares: Calculation of Income Earned For FY 23-24
• GST Audits And Top 5 Practical Difficulties Faced By Taxpayers During Audit
• Importance of a Well-Crafted Signature for Chartered Accountants (CA)
• Addressing ITC Mismatch: A Comprehensive Guide to DRC-01C Notice Response
• ITC on Motor Vehicles under GST: A Detailed Analysis
• For Tax Filing - Analyze the Old & New Tax Regime

Trending Online Classes

Live class on Bonus & Gratuity(with recording)

GST Live Certification Course (39th Batch) - April 2024 (Weekend Batch) (With Certificate)

"Live class on Python for Financial Analysis: Unlocking Efficiency in Accounting and Finance"

CCI Articles

You can also submit your article by sending to [email protected]

Browse by Category

• Corporate Law
• Info Technology
• Shares & Stock
• Professional Resource
• Union Budget
• Miscellaneous

Whatsapp Groups

Login at caclubindia, caclubindia.

India's largest network for finance professionals

Alternatively, you can log in using:

Celebrating 20 Years of IP Excellence

Latest copyright cases in 2022 – part 1.

This running post provides a summary of the latest Copyright cases decided by courts in India in 2022:

Samir Kasal v. Prashant Mehta & Ors.

The Plaintiff conceptualized a cricket league format titled ‘Legends Premier League’ wherein famous retired cricket players would play a Test format of cricket. The details about the same were provided to Defendant No. 2 in a strictly confidential manner. However, the Defendants decided to organize ‘Legends League Cricket’ without the Plaintiff’s consent which led him to file this case.

The Plaintiff contended the Defendants’ acts were a breach of confidentiality. Additionally, the Plaintiff claimed that the idea conceptualized by them amounted to ‘work’ under Section 2(y) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Whereas, the Defendants No. 2 to 4 contended that the Plaintiff’s idea was neither original nor novel due to similar elements in prior cricket games that existed in the public domain. Additionally, the Defendants No. 2 to 4 claimed that infringement could not be claimed by the Plaintiff because the alleged ‘work’ was not ‘completed’. Lastly, the Defendant contended that there was no breach of confidentiality due to absence of a contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 2.

The Court held that the Plaintiff’s idea did not amount to a ‘work’ under the Act because common elements of the same existed in the public domain for years thereby rendering the Plaintiff’s idea unoriginal. Additionally, the Court held that the conversations via emails and WhatsApp Messages were inconclusive in formation of a quasi-contract. Lastly, the Court opined that the obligation of confidentiality could not continue indefinitely thereby dismissing the Plaintiff’s claims with respect to breach of confidentiality. Thus, the Court concluded that the balance of convenience was in favour of the Defendants.

Citation :  Samir Kasal v. Prashant Mehta & Ors. , Decided by The Delhi High Court on 19 th January, 2022, available at  Samir Kasal v. Prashant Mehta & Ors. , last visited on 22nd January, 2022.

M/s. Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. … v. DXC Technology Pvt. Ltd.

The Common Plaintiff was in the business of protecting copyrights that subsist in sound recordings, in their capacity as an assignee, licensee or authorized agent. The Plaintiff claimed exclusive copyright to the extent of exploitation of the on-ground performance rights of various sound recordings on the basis of assignment agreements. The Defendants in both the suits contested that the Plaintiff was neither a copyright society nor a member of a copyright society thereby dis-entitled to receive any license fees.

The Plaintiff contended that an owner of a sound recording does not come within the ambit of Section 33 of the Copyright Act, 1957, where the role of a copyright society comes into the picture. Additionally, the Plaintiff contended that the right of a copyright owner is recognized under Section 30 of the Act thereby rendering a registration under Section 33(3) unnecessary.

The Defendants contended that the spirit of the Copyright (Amendment) Act, 2012 was to prevent exploitation of copyright in sound recordings. Additionally, the Defendants emphasized that its spirit will be defeated if the Plaintiff escapes registration as a copyright society under Section 33(3) of the Act.

The Court dismissed the Defendants’ distinct reliance on Section 30 and held that Section 30 does not distinguish between individuals and businesses that grant licenses and such distinction could be found in Section 33(3). The Court held that a business of issuing licenses has to be routed ‘only’ through a copyright society that is registered under Section 33(3). The reliefs prayed for by the Plaintiff, were thus denied by the Court because they were held to be statutorily barred from issuing licenses.

Citation :  M/s. Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. DXC Technology Pvt. Ltd., Decided by The Madras High Court on 8 th December, 2021, available at  M/s. Novex Communications Pvt. Ltd. v. DXC Technology Pvt. Ltd. , last visited on 22nd January, 2022.

DocTutorials Edutech Private Limited v. Telegram FZ-LLC & Ors.,

The suit was filed by the Plaintiff against unknown Defendants No. 5 & 6 (referred to as John Doe), as well as any other persons associated with them, for releasing its paid content on a platform run by Defendants No. 1 & 2, i.e., Telegram. The Plaintiff Company provided online content for medical entrance exam preparations, through its website and mobile applications, and was the sole licensee of the copyright over the preparatory content. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants 5 & 6 hacked into its secure service and obtained the copyrighted material, and disbursed them on channels made on Defendant No. 1’s app, and Defendant No.2’s website. The Plaintiff further asserted that the Defendants No. 1 & 2 did not take down the infringing content despite receipt of notices from the Plaintiff. The Defendants 1 & 2 asserted that they had taken all possible measures to take down the infringing content that appeared on their platforms, and that they would continue to do so when notified by the Plaintiff. The Court took into consideration the claims, and agreed that the Plaintiff had made a prima facie case, and that it would cause irreparable harm to the Plaintiff if the relief was not granted. The Court held that Defendants 5 & 6 were infringing Plaintiff’s copyright and restrained them from using the copyrighted content on their platforms. The Court also ordered Defendants 1 & 2 to provide the Plaintiff with all the details that they had regarding Defendants 5 & 6. The Court concluded by stating that Defendants 1 and 2 would remain bound by their statement that they would take down all the unauthorized content and block all channels which contain such infringing content, expeditiously. Citation: DocTutorials Edutech Private Limited v. Telegram FZ-LLC & Ors., decided on January 25, 2022, available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/29709924/ , Accessed on January 28, 2022.

This post is brought to you by BananaIP’s Consulting & Strategy Department.

About BananaIP’s Consulting & Strategy Department

BananaIP’s IP Consulting & Strategy Department has the experience of helping companies use IP for business and competitive advantage. Companies regularly seek their assistance, advise and opinions on identifying/mining inventions and creations, conducting IP audits, protecting IP assets appropriately, launching risk free products, managing litigation for business benefit, resolving disputes out of Court, making money out of IP, enforcing IP, and licensing transactions.

Updates on recent orders and judgments are brought to you by Consulting & Strategy Divisions of BananaIP Counsels, a Top ranked IP Firm in India. If you have any questions, or need any clarifications, please write to [email protected]    with the subject: Copyright Judgements

Please note that these case updates have been put together from different sources, primary and secondary, and BananaIP’s reporters may not have verified all the decisions published in the bulletin. You may write to [email protected]   for corrections and take down.

You May Also Like

Value of ip for small and medium enterprises, choosing the right ip name/business representation, leave a comment cancel reply.

You must be logged in to post a comment.

You are here:

What the New York Times' copyright infringement case means for AI models

The meaning of fair use in US copyright law will be examined by litigation over OpenAI's and Microsoft's use of copyrighted material, in a case that exposes the need for copyright reform in Australia.

The New York Times has sued OpenAI and Microsoft for copyright infringement over the use of articles and other content from the Times in training large language models and generating content from them.

The Times’ complaint, filed on 27 December, says that these AI tools “can generate output that recites Times content verbatim, closely summarizes it, and mimics its expressive style" and also falsely attribute content to the Times. As a result, the Times says that the AI tools “undermine and damage The Times' relationship with its readers and deprive The Times of subscription, licensing, advertising, and affiliate revenue.”

This separation from customers (with associated loss of the ability to monetise content) and loss of control over content (with adverse reputational impacts) is at the heart of many creators’ concerns about use of their content by generative AI tools.

This case adds to several other cases currently before the courts over similar concerns. But it could prove to be one of the more important cases with very well resourced parties fighting over high stakes. There also appears to be some clear evidence of copying in the generative output (the complaint provides many examples of output that is a near identical copy of content from the Times), something which some of the plaintiffs in the other cases have found difficult to prove.

In terms of the specific legal issues, the core of the legal complaint by The Times is that its copyright has been infringed by:

• building datasets for training containing millions of copies of The Times’ works
• training the GPT models on that data
• storing, processing and reproducing the GPT models, which have “memorized” the Times’ works
• disseminating generative output containing copies and derivatives of the Times’ works.

The Times’ complaint also pursues some alternative legal avenues including that:

• Microsoft is vicariously liable for OpenAI’s infringement by controlling, directing and profiting from it;
• Microsoft is liable for assisting and contributing to the infringement by providing infrastructure and a range of other services and software;
• end users may be liable for generating infringing output, so OpenAI and Microsoft are also liable for assisting and contributing to that;
• the defendants have removed copyright management information;
• there has been unfair competition by misusing and misappropriation of content leading to loss of advertising and referral revenue; and
• there has been unauthorised use of trade marks in the generative output and also dilution of the trademarks by associating them with inaccurate content.

It seems hard to deny, based on the examples in the complaint, that there is infringing output from the GPT model. The bigger issue however is likely to be whether the creation of the model itself by collating the data and training a model with it is an infringement. That is a massive issue for the whole AI industry as it determines whether models can be created at all by training them on publicly available data without a licence.

A fundamental legal point for courts in resolving this issue in the Times’ case and in other AI copyright cases will be whether creating AI models with third party data constitutes “fair use” under US copyright law. The Times’ complaint anticipates this argument by the defence and rejects it by saying: “Publicly, Defendants insist that their conduct is protected as "fair use" because their unlicensed use of copyrighted content to train GenAl models serves a new "transformative" purpose. But there is nothing "transformative" about using The Times's content without payment to create products that substitute for the Times and steal audiences away from it. Because the outputs of Defendants' GenAI models compete with and closely mimic the inputs used to train them, copying Times works for that purpose is not fair use.”

However, many US academics and commentators are arguing the opposite position on this issue: that training a model is fair use. With strong views on both sides, ultimately, a decision from a superior court is likely to be needed for the industry to accept a common position on this issue.

This case could provide an opportunity for a court to give some guidance on the issues around fair use of copyright works in the AI industry. However, the case follows unsuccessful attempts of the parties to negotiate a licence deal (in contrast to the Associated Press which reportedly has struck a deal with OpenAI for the use of its content). It’s quite possible that the case is designed by the Times to create additional leverage for future negotiations with OpenAI and Microsoft, and unfortunately (from the industry’s perspective in wanting clarity) the case may end up settling without a court needing to give a judgement on the issues.

How would this type of case play out in Australia? In Australia, we don’t have a “fair use” exception so this case would be considerably different here, with a much easier run for the Times to win. Our “fair dealing” exceptions to copyright only apply to narrow specific purposes, which would not apply to this case. For example, the “fair dealing for research or study” exception can apply to creating models for the purposes of some types of academic research or for the purposes of study by students (but not for creation of models by their teachers). There is also a fair dealing exception for “reporting the news” but that would not allow copying newspaper articles themselves when they are not the subject of the news being reported.

Our copyright law is therefore a major barrier to training AI models in Australia, at least where that requires training on a vast amount of content publicly available on the internet (and hence it’s not practical to negotiate individual licence agreements). A key issue for our policy-makers is whether we should change the law to introduce a broad “fair use” exception like the US (if in fact, it does allow training models) or another specific fair dealing exception targeted at AI (like the specific “text and data mining” exception in the UK). If we want to develop an AI industry in Australia, then law reform is likely to be needed.

In terms of remedies, the Times is seeking to hold OpenAI and Microsoft responsible for billions in damages, and orders from the court to stop further infringing conduct and to destroy the training datasets and large language models.

This case will be worth following as it evolves in the coming months.

Get in touch

Copyright Alliance

• Who We Represent
• Community Partners
• Statements to Congress
• Agency and Other Filings
• Amicus Briefs
• Position Papers
• Copyright Act
• Copyright Regulations
• Copyright Compendium
• Copyright Cases
• Copyright Legislation
• Government Reports
• Congressional Hearings
• International Agreements
• Find a Copyright Attorney
• Creator Assistance Directory
• Find a Copyright Owner
• Copyright Facts by State
• Report Piracy
• Jobs in Copyright
• IPDC Program
• Press Releases
• Media Center
• Trending Topics
• Event Calendar
• Copyright Law Explained
• AI and Copyright
• CCB Explained
• Copyright Law by Industry
• Copyright Courses
• Join the Alliance
• Creator Voices
• Copyright Alliance Policy Alert
• AI Copyright Alert

Current AI Copyright Cases – Part 1

The Unauthorized Use of Copyrighted Material as Training Data

As the world of technology continues to evolve, one of its most intriguing phenomena, artificial intelligence (AI), has taken center stage. While these new technologies offer exciting creative opportunities, copyright owners are beginning to challenge AI developers in the courts over the permissionless use of their copyrighted works for the training of these AI tools. These AI copyright cases could potentially clarify the intersection of AI and copyright law, at least on the input side of this innovative new technology.

Getty Images Lawsuit Against Stability AI – United States

In early February, Getty Images filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Stability AI, alleging that the developer of the popular Stable Diffusion AI image generator infringed Getty’s copyrighted photographs, removed or altered copyright management information (CMI), provided false copyright management information, and infringed its trademarks. Getty Images claims that Stability AI copied photographs from its website and used over 12 million images and associated metadata to train Stable Diffusion, despite express terms of use on Getty’s website expressly prohibiting such uses.

With regards to the copyright management information claims, Getty Images argues that the output generated by Stable Diffusion often contains a modified version of Getty Images’ watermark, “underscoring the clear link between the copyrighted images that Stability AI copied without permission and the output its model delivers.” The complaint goes on to allege that Stability AI knowingly falsified, removed, or altered Getty Images’ watermarks and metadata with the intent to induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement of Getty Images’ copyrights.

As one of the first infringement lawsuits brought against a developer of a generative AI tool for unauthorized use of copyrighted materials for training purposes, the case has the potential to influence future development of AI systems by addressing principal copyright issues like fair use. While Stability has not yet filed a response to the complaint, it will almost surely adopt the position of other AI systems such as OpenAI , which claims that training AI on copyright protected materials qualifies as a transformative purpose that weighs heavily in favor of fair use.

The outcome of this case could also have significant impact on whether creators and copyright owners’ ability and right to license under the Copyright Act will continue to be undermined in the AI context, jeopardizing the livelihoods and crafts of millions of human creators. The lawsuit also touches on another interesting feature of copyrighted works through which AI developers draw incredible value—metadata cleaning and tagging, which streamlines AI training, but is a value that copyright owners would be less incentivized to provide if AI developers are allowed to use their works without permission.

Getty Images Lawsuit Against Stability AI – United Kingdom

Earlier in January 2023, Getty Images announced a lawsuit against Stability AI in the High Court of Justice in London. Similar to the allegations in the U.S. lawsuit, Getty Images claims that Stability AI infringed upon Getty Images’ copyrighted images and works by using them to train Stability’s AI.

While the full details of Getty Images’ UK lawsuit have yet to be made public, the case, similar to its U.S. lawsuit, could have a significant impact on the unauthorized use of copyrighted material for AI systems in the United Kingdom.

The case will be one to closely watch, particularly as the United Kingdom government announced its intent to reconsider a problematic proposal that would have created a broad exception for use of copyrighted works for any AI training. This case has the potential to spark more international conversations about how AI systems and the use of copyrighted works as training material will be treated in different jurisdictions globally.

Visual Artists’ Class-Action Lawsuit Against Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt

On January 13, 2023, award-winning visual artists Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division, against defendants Stability AI Ltd. and Stability AI, Inc., Midjourney, Inc., and DeviantArt, Inc. The plaintiffs allege that their works were used without permission as input materials to train and develop various AI image generators including Stable Diffusion (Stability AI), DreamStudio (by Stability), the Midjourney Product (Midjourney), and DreamUp (DeviantArt). The plaintiffs also assert that Stability AI generated reconstructed copies of the plaintiff’s works, which they argue qualify as unauthorized derivative works. The plaintiffs point out that the defendants reap substantial commercial and profit on the value of these copyrighted images, highlighting that the defendants’ AI machines generate images “‘in the style’ of a particular artist are already sold on the internet, siphoning commissions from the artists themselves.” The plaintiffs also argue that the defendants are liable for vicarious copyright infringement and violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by altering or removing copyright management information from the images owned by the plaintiffs and programming the AI to omit any CMI as part of its output.

Similar to the case Getty filed in the United States, this AI copyright case could have a lasting impact on whether training AI systems on copyrighted works qualifies as fair use and whether the output of a generative AI system qualify as derivatives of the works it is trained on. Unlike the Getty case, which makes clear that Stable Diffusion “at times” produces images that are derivative of Getty’s copyrighted works that Stability AI copied, the visual artist plaintiffs make a broader claim that all the output of Stable Diffusion is derivative of the works it trains on. In the context of a class action, this claim may be tough to demonstrate. While the complaint includes an example of an instance in which the plaintiffs allege a derivative work is generated from source images, extrapolating that claim to cover all of the AI system’s output would likely be very difficult to prove.

Further, the complaint refers to Stable Diffusion as a “21st century collage tool,” which seems to be used in an effort to oversimplify the AI machine. However, it should be noted that collage is an artistic medium that often utilizes unique skills and techniques to create original works that qualify for copyright protection. Even when collage artists make use of copyrighted material without authorization, the use may qualify as fair use. For plaintiffs to argue Stable Diffusion’s use of the copyrighted materials results in collages that definitely do not qualify for the fair use exception may be too broad an allegation. Lastly, as this case develops and transitions into the discovery phase it will be interesting to learn about the quantity of allegedly infringed works and how the court will attempt to certify that the proposed class of works are registered works.

Programmers’ Class Action Lawsuit Against GitHub 

On November 3, 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division, by a group of anonymous programmers against Microsoft, GitHub (a Microsoft subsidiary), and OpenAI alleging a violation of Section 1202 of the DMCA for unauthorized and unlicensed use of the programmers’ software code to develop the defendants’ AI machines, Codex and Copilot. Both are assistive AI-based systems offered to software programmers and trained on a large collection of publicly accessible software code and other materials, including the allegedly infringed software code created by the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs contend that Microsoft and GitHub used the plaintiffs’ materials without complying with open-source licensing terms, resulting in an unlawful reproduction of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted codes and violating various attribution requirements under the licenses. While the complaint does not include the type of traditional copyright infringement claims seen in the other cases discussed above, it alleges that OpenAI violated Section 1202 of the DMCA, which makes it unlawful to provide or distribute false CMI with the intent to induce or conceal infringement. 

In January, Microsoft and OpenAI filed motions to dismiss in the case, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case because they failed to argue they suffered specific injuries from the companies’ actions. The companies also argued that the lawsuit did not identify particular copyrighted works they misused or contracts that they breached.

As the case proceeds, it will be interesting to see how the court will apply the requirement of attribution and the provisions of Section 1202 when, as OpenAI argues, no copyrighted works have been identified. An additional hurdle for the plaintiff’s 1202 claim is that the statute will only hold a defendant liable if they intentionally altered or removed CMI knowing that such conduct would “induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement.”  The outcome in this AI copyright case could have a significant impact on different AI industries and how AI system developers approach attribution and licensing practices when using copyrighted works for AI training.

Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre v. ROSS Intelligence Inc. 

In May 2020, Plaintiffs Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH (Thomson Reuters”) and West Publishing Corporation (“West”) sued Defendant ROSS Intelligence Inc. (“ROSS”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, for copyright infringement relating to the unlawful use of the plaintiffs’ unique platform capabilities.  Plaintiffs operate and market Westlaw, a widely known legal search platform used throughout the legal industry. ROSS developed a new legal search platform using AI, and to do so, the company partnered with LegalEase Solutions, LLC, to improve ROSS’s search tool. According to plaintiffs, however, LegalEase “used a bot … to download and store mass quantities of [plaintiff’s] proprietary information,” which it then provided to ROSS.

Plaintiffs alleged that LegalEase’s activities constituted copyright infringement because it used plaintiff’s headnotes to assist ROSS in formulating questions, used key numbers and headnotes to locate judicial opinions, and at one point assisted ROSS in classifying cases under certain legal topics. After the court denied ROSS’s motion to dismiss , concluding that the plaintiffs’ copyright claims were adequate ROSS then filed a motion for summary judgment in early January 2023, asserting its affirmative defense of fair use.

ROSS argues that (1) the use of Westlaw’s content was functional and transformative, (2) the copyright protection for the copied Westlaw materials is “thin,” (3) the amount used holds little weight because “any copying was intermediate and the final ROSS product does not contain any copyrighted materials,” and (4) ROSS’s product did not replace the market for Westlaw’s works.

On February 6, Thomson filed its opposition to ROSS’s motion, arguing that (1) ROSS’s purpose in using the Westlaw Content was to create a legal research product that would compete with and replace Westlaw, without any further transformative purposes, (2) the Westlaw content is creative, which weighs against fair use and undermines ROSS’s claim it did not copy protectable content, (3) the copying was both qualitatively and quantitatively substantial, and (4) ROSS harmed the market for Westlaw content by taking and using Westlaw content to simply generate a ROSS  product to displace Westlaw’s product.

In addition to addressing the question of whether training AI on copyrighted materials constitutes transformative fair use, this case is likely to provide a unique opportunity in understanding how courts will analyze a fair use defense related to AI training on materials that include legal opinions that, while themselves not subject to copyright protection, are still accompanied by creative expressive materials created and owned by Thomson Reuters. Furthermore, the court is likely to consider whether scraping material for AI training purposes from a website in violation of terms of service results in breach of contract liability.

UAB Planner 5D v. Facebook, Inc.

In 2019, UAB Planner 5D filed a complaint in the United States District Court Northern District of California, for copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriations against Facebook, Inc., Facebook Technologies, LLC, and The Trustees of Princeton University. Planner 5D, a Lithuanian company, operates a home design website that allows users to create virtual interior design scenes using a library of virtual objects (such as tables chairs, and sofas) to populate the scenes. Planner 5D claimed it is the copyright owner of the three-dimensional objects and scenes, and in the compilation of the objects and scenes.

Planner 5D alleged that computer scientists at Princeton downloaded the entirety of Planner 5D’s data collection of objects and scenes because of the collection’s uniquely large and realistic qualities. It also alleges that not only did Princeton use this data for their own research purposes, but that Princeton also posted the data to a publicly accessible Princeton URL and labeled it the ‘SUNCG dataset.’ Planner 5D alleged that Facebook was also interested in its objects and scenes collection that would help it tap into the commercial potential of scene recognition technology. After a motion to dismiss copyright claims for Planner 5D’s failure to show its objects and scenes are subject to copyright protection was granted in July 2020, Planner 5D amended its complaint and a second motion to dismiss by Facebook was denied by the court in April 2021.

On February 17, 2023, Facebook filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that Planner 5D cannot establish ownership of a valid copyright. The defendants argue that the discovery phase “confirmed that Planner 5D’s works are data files that cannot be copyrighted as computer programs, as literary works as they lack human authorship, or as pictorial works because they lack originality.” Because of these findings, the defendants jointly moved for summary judgment on all of Planner 5D’s claims. Oral arguments will take place Wednesday, July 12, 2023, in San Francisco, California.

While the core claim of this case concern copyright infringement, the lawsuit also touches on another interesting AI copyright dispute — human authorship vs. AI generation. There is a strong likelihood that Facebook’s defense — that Planner 5D’s scenes and objects are not human authored — may be strengthened by recent announcements by the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO). In response to Kris Kashtanova’s attempt to register their graphic novel, Zarya at the Dawn , the USCO only granted the registration to what it deemed as human-authored elements within the work, but concluded that images in the work that were generated by the AI technology were not the product of human authorship, and not included in the scope of copyright protection in the registration.

Additionally, the USCO released an AI registration policy statement, to clarify its practices for examining and registering works that contain AI-generated material. With regard to the Office’s application of the human authorship requirement, this statement clarifies that “in the case of works containing AI-generated material, the Office will consider whether the AI contributions are the result of ‘mechanical reproduction’ or instead of an author’s ‘own original mental conception, to which [the author] gave visible form.’” The USCO’s recent correspondence will likely influence the outcome of this case and subsequently impact the AI copyrightability aspect of this case.

As these AI copyright cases proceed and new cases arise (including ones on AI authorship which are discussed in part two of this blog series), the U.S. Copyright Office and the courts will continue to consider important issues surrounding the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials for training AI systems. While the outcomes of these disputes are sure to impact the development of AI systems, it’s essential that the foundational principles of copyright law are recognized and that the rights of creators and copyright owners are upheld.

If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members  membership form ! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

get blog updates

• Faculty & Research
• Life at Duke Law
• Faculty & Staff Directory
• Event Calendar
• Goodson Law Library
• ABA Required Disclosures
• Follow Duke Law Duke Law on Youtube Duke Law on Twitter Duke Law on Facebook Duke Law on Instagram
• Return to start of menu
• Juris Doctor
• International LLM
• Master of Judicial Studies
• Dual Degrees
• Areas of Focus
• Public Interest & Pro Bono
• Summer Institutes
• PreLaw Fellowship Program
• Admissions Contact
• Academic Advising
• Academic Calendar
• Course Browser
• Degree Requirements
• Clinics and Externships
• Legal Writing
• Wintersession
• Study Abroad
• Registration Portal
• Faculty Profiles
• Scholarship
• Visiting Assistant Professor Program
• Faculty Workshops
• Teaching & Learning
• Student Resources
• Student Organizations
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Student Events
• Prospective Students
• JD Students
• International LLMs
• Employment Data
• Administration
• A History of Duke Law School
• Durham: The Bull City
• Visiting Duke Law
• Rules & Policies
• News & Events
• Alumni Benefits
• Update Your Address
• Event Refund Policy

210 Science Drive | Durham, NC 27708 | 919-613-7006

Gina Campanelli ’24 and Ken Hong ’24 claim title in national IP moot court competition

The duo bested more than 60 other teams from law schools around the country, arguing a case involving AI and copyright.

Gina Campanelli ’24 and Ken Kashihara Hong ’24 emerged as national champions on Friday, besting nine other teams in the final rounds of the 2024 Giles S. Rich Memorial Moot Court Competition in Washington, D.C. — and more than 60 teams total who entered.

It’s the first time a Duke Law team has won the prestigious appellate advocacy moot, which the American Intellectual Property Law Association has sponsored for more than 50 years.

“It was amazing. I was in absolute shock when they said our names, but it was the most incredible feeling ever,” Campanelli said.

“We had to jump back on a plane and start studying for finals, so there wasn't a ton of time to celebrate. But it was such a cool opportunity to get to do it with Ken, and we’re really happy to bring the win to Duke. It’s our Cinderella comeback story.”

Last year, the duo placed second in the regional rounds of the same moot but was knocked out in the preliminaries of the national rounds, she explained. This year, they won the southeastern regional to advance to the national round and capture the title, arguing for the appellant in a copyright and patent infringement case involving an AI model trained to write scripts by digesting copyright-protected books and screenplays.

“Gina and Ken have shown incredible initiative, talent, and diligence throughout the two years of their moot court participation,” said Elvin R. Latty Distinguished Professor of Law Arti K. Rai , who served as advisor to the team.

"Their national victory is extremely well-deserved, and I hope they serve as an inspiration for future Duke Law students.”

The victory caps off a friendship that began in their 1L year at Duke Law and is rooted in shared interests in science, intellectual property law, and oral advocacy. Campanelli and Hong were assigned to the same 1L small section and have both been members of Moot Court Board since competing in the Hardt Cup. Knowing Campanelli shares a strong interest in patent litigation, Hong suggested last year that they partner up in the AIPLA competition.

“Gina and I, we don’t just love moot court. We also love IP,” Hong said. “I think our background and our passion for IP was really obvious to the judges. We weren’t there to get a prize, or because we were required to. We were there because we were really interested in doing this outside of law school too. And that not only made it so much more fun, but it also helped us in the competition itself.”

Neither received class credit for participating, he added.

Campanelli and Hong bring complementary skills and styles to the courtroom. Campanelli praises Hong’s poise and composure before a hot bench; Hong credits his teammate’s command of the material and strategic thinking. They share a similar approach to preparation — “We both like to roll up our sleeves and get the work done” — that translates into a harmonious relationship as co-counsel. Judges took note.

“Gina and I have a good rapport, and I also feel like our work ethics really are compatible,” Hong said. “I didn’t think our camaraderie was visible, because I felt very much in the zone acting professionally. But I guess it was more visible than I thought as we passed little sticky notes and talked about ideas during the competition.”

“We got feedback from the judges that they thought we made a really good team and complemented each other well,” Campanelli said. “They could tell we’re friends and enjoy working together.”

A winning duo backed by an expert team

This year more than 60 teams from around the country entered the annual moot’s five regional competitions. Ten teams advanced to the national finals, held at the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and presided over by Federal Circuit Judges Kara F. Stoll and Tiffany P. Cunningham and Judge Molly R. Silfen of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Campanelli and Hong say their fall Appellate Practice class, taught by high-level practitioners, helped them build skills and confidence that made them more relaxed and conservational before the judges this year. Jim Saranteas , a veteran litigator who volunteers as appellate advocacy coach for the Moot Court Board, provided invaluable advice, encouragement, and practice. And IP faculty members James Boyle , Christopher Buccafusco , Jennifer Jenkins , and coach Arti Rai were generous with their insights on the material.

“Even if they weren't with us in person, we really did feel supported by a lot of the Duke Law community in terms of how we prepared,” Hong said. “It wasn't just the two of us, by any means.”

Campanelli, from San Francisco, graduated from Dartmouth College. Before law school she worked in healthcare consulting and received a master’s degree in biology from Harvard’s Extension School. She is editor-in-chief of the Duke Law Technology Review and an online editor for Duke Law Journal. In addition to Moot Court Board, she also served as president of the North Carolina Club and vice president of the Intellectual Property Law Society. After graduation she will clerk for Judge Todd M. Hughes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Hong, who is from New Jersey, graduated from Carnegie Mellon University. Prior to law school he worked as a research and development chemist. Along with being active on the Moot Court Board, he has served as co-president of the Asian Pacific American Law Students Association. He will join Gibson Dunn in New York following graduation and plans to pursue his interest in intellectual property.

Competing in the finals on Friday caused Campanelli and Hong to miss their last day of class at Duke Law School. But winning a prestigious national moot was worth it.

“After last year we had a lot more motivation and we just really wanted to end our law school careers strong,” Hong said.

“Against that backdrop, this year was special to us because we had another chance.” 

“We don’t just love moot court. We also love IP.” 

In this section

• Resources for News Media
• Video Archive
• Duke Law Magazine
• Archived Featured Stories
• Communications Staff

Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States

What's at stake.

Idaho and Moyle, et al. v. United States was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by Idaho politicians seeking to disregard a federal statute — the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) — and put doctors in jail for providing pregnant patients necessary emergency medical care. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this case on April 24, 2024. The Court’s ultimate decision will impact access to this essential care across the country.

Enacted in 1986, EMTALA requires any hospital with an emergency room that receives Medicare funds (virtually all hospitals) to provide stabilizing treatment to anyone who comes to the hospital experiencing an emergency medical condition. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the country went into effect in Idaho.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed this lawsuit against Idaho in August 2022, seeking an injunction to allow patients to receive emergency abortions, as required under this federal law. A lower court granted the injunction, but anti-abortion politicians appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, which lifted the injunction and took the case in January.

In March 2024, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ACLU of Idaho, and the law firm Cooley LLP filed an amicus brief in the case explaining that Idaho’s arguments cannot be justified under the Supreme Court’s own precedents, and that all three branches of government have long recognized that hospitals are required under EMTALA to provide emergency abortion care to any patient who needs it.

As a result of this ban, medical providers have found themselves having to decide between providing necessary emergency care to a pregnant patient and facing criminal prosecution from the state, or declining medical care and leaving a patient in crisis while facing federal sanctions for violating EMTALA.

Since Idaho’s extreme abortion ban took effect, Idaho has lost nearly 1 in 5 obstetricians and gynecologists who have chosen to leave the state and practice elsewhere, which has led to hospital obstetrics programs around the state shuttering their doors.

Medical professionals, from the American College of Emergency Physicians and American Hospital Association to the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists , have underscored that doctors must be able to provide their patients with the emergency abortion care they need.

Press Releases

Supreme Court to Determine Whether Politicians Can Deny Emergency Medical Care to Pregnant People

ACLU Brief in Emergency Abortion Care Case Highlights Idaho Politicians' Deeply Flawed Legal Arguments

Other Documents

Aclu et al. amicus brief, idaho and moyle, et al. v. united states, aclu's vision.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis. Pharetra diam sit amet nisl suscipit adipiscing. Sodales ut eu sem integer vitae. Cursus in hac habitasse platea dictumst quisque sagittis purus. In hendrerit gravida rutrum quisque. Nisl pretium fusce id velit ut tortor. Mauris pellentesque pulvinar pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus. A arcu cursus vitae congue mauris rhoncus aenean vel elit. Id aliquet risus feugiat in ante metus. Leo a diam sollicitudin tempor id eu nisl nunc. Pretium viverra suspendisse potenti nullam ac tortor. Egestas diam in arcu cursus euismod quis viverra.

Proin fermentum leo vel orci porta non. Tortor pretium viverra suspendisse potenti nullam ac tortor vitae. Velit aliquet sagittis id consectetur purus ut faucibus. Vel elit scelerisque mauris pellentesque pulvinar pellentesque habitant. Felis eget velit aliquet sagittis id consectetur purus ut faucibus. Tempor nec feugiat nisl pretium fusce id velit ut tortor. Lacinia at quis risus sed vulputate odio. Magnis dis parturient montes nascetur ridiculus mus mauris vitae ultricies. Consequat mauris nunc congue nisi. Adipiscing elit pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et. Praesent elementum facilisis leo vel fringilla. Faucibus nisl tincidunt eget nullam non nisi est sit amet.

Learn More About the Issues in This Case

• Reproductive Freedom

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• Your Health
• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.
• Public Health

Reproductive rights in America

What's at stake as the supreme court hears idaho case about abortion in emergencies.

Selena Simmons-Duffin

The Supreme Court will hear another case about abortion rights on Wednesday. Protestors gathered outside the court last month when the case before the justices involved abortion pills. Tom Brenner for The Washington Post/Getty Images hide caption

The Supreme Court will hear another case about abortion rights on Wednesday. Protestors gathered outside the court last month when the case before the justices involved abortion pills.

In Idaho, when a pregnant patient has complications, abortion is only legal to prevent the woman's death. But a federal law known as EMTALA requires doctors to provide "stabilizing treatment" to patients in the emergency department.

The Biden administration sees that as a direct conflict, which is why the abortion issue is back – yet again – before the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

The case began just a few weeks after the justices overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, when the federal Justice Department sued Idaho , arguing that the court should declare that "Idaho's law is invalid" when it comes to emergency abortions because the federal emergency care law preempts the state's abortion ban. So far, a district court agreed with the Biden administration, an appeals court panel agreed with Idaho, and the Supreme Court allowed the strict ban to take effect in January when it agreed to hear the case.

Supreme Court allows Idaho abortion ban to be enacted, first such ruling since Dobbs

The case, known as Moyle v. United States (Mike Moyle is the speaker of the Idaho House), has major implications on everything from what emergency care is available in states with abortion bans to how hospitals operate in Idaho. Here's a summary of what's at stake.

1. Idaho physicians warn patients are being harmed

Under Idaho's abortion law , the medical exception only applies when a doctor judges that "the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman." (There is also an exception to the Idaho abortion ban in cases of rape or incest, only in the first trimester of the pregnancy, if the person files a police report.)

In a filing with the court , a group of 678 physicians in Idaho described cases in which women facing serious pregnancy complications were either sent home from the hospital or had to be transferred out of state for care. "It's been just a few months now that Idaho's law has been in effect – six patients with medical emergencies have already been transferred out of state for [pregnancy] termination," Dr. Jim Souza, chief physician executive of St. Luke's Health System in Idaho, told reporters on a press call last week.

Those delays and transfers can have consequences. For example, Dr. Emily Corrigan described a patient in court filings whose water broke too early, which put her at risk of infection. After two weeks of being dismissed while trying to get care, the patient went to Corrigan's hospital – by that time, she showed signs of infection and had lost so much blood she needed a transfusion. Corrigan added that without receiving an abortion, the patient could have needed a limb amputation or a hysterectomy – in other words, even if she didn't die, she could have faced life-long consequences to her health.

Attorneys for Idaho defend its abortion law, arguing that "every circumstance described by the administration's declarations involved life-threatening circumstances under which Idaho law would allow an abortion."

Ryan Bangert, senior attorney for the Christian legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, which is providing pro-bono assistance to the state of Idaho, says that "Idaho law does allow for physicians to make those difficult decisions when it's necessary to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother," without waiting for patients to become sicker and sicker.

Still, Dr. Sara Thomson, an OB-GYN in Boise, says difficult calls in the hospital are not hypothetical or even rare. "In my group, we're seeing this happen about every month or every other month where this state law complicates our care," she says. Four patients have sued the state in a separate case arguing that the narrow medical exception harmed them.

"As far as we know, we haven't had a woman die as a consequence of this law, but that is really on the top of our worry list of things that could happen because we know that if we watch as death is approaching and we don't intervene quickly enough, when we decide finally that we're going to intervene to save her life, it may be too late," she says.

2. Hospitals are closing units and struggling to recruit doctors

Labor and delivery departments are expensive for hospitals to operate. Idaho already had a shortage of providers, including OB-GYNS. Hospital administrators now say the Idaho abortion law has led to an exodus of maternal care providers from the state, which has a population of 2 million people.

Three rural hospitals in Idaho have closed their labor-and-delivery units since the abortion law took effect. "We are seeing the expansion of what's called obstetrical deserts here in Idaho," said Brian Whitlock, president and CEO of the Idaho Hospital Association.

Since Idaho's abortion law took effect, nearly one in four OB-GYNs have left the state or retired, according to a report from the Idaho Physician Well-Being Action Collaborative. The report finds the loss of doctors who specialize in high-risk pregnancies is even more extreme – five of nine full time maternal-fetal medicine specialists have left Idaho.

Administrators say they aren't able to recruit new providers to fill those positions. "Since [the abortion law's] enactment, St. Luke's has had markedly fewer applicants for open physician positions, particularly in obstetrics. And several out-of-state candidates have withdrawn their applications upon learning of the challenges of practicing in Idaho, citing [the law's] enactment and fear of criminal penalties," reads an amicus brief from St. Luke's health system in support of the federal government.

"Prior to the abortion decision, we already ranked 50th in number of physicians per capita – we were already a strained state," says Thomson, the doctor in Boise. She's experienced the loss of OB-GYN colleagues first hand. "I had a partner retire right as the laws were changing and her position has remained open – unfilled now for almost two years – so my own personal group has been short-staffed," she says.

ADF's Bangert says he's skeptical of the assertion that the abortion law is responsible for this exodus of doctors from Idaho. "I would be very surprised if Idaho's abortion law is the sole or singular cause of any physician shortage," he says. "I'm very suspicious of any claims of causality."

3. Justices could weigh in on fetal "personhood"

The state of Idaho's brief argues that EMTALA actually requires hospitals "to protect and care for an 'unborn child,'" an argument echoed in friend-of-the-court briefs from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and a group of states from Indiana to Wyoming that also have restrictive abortion laws. They argue that abortion can't be seen as a stabilizing treatment if one patient dies as a result.

Thomson is also Catholic, and she says the idea that, in an emergency, she is treating two patients – the fetus and the mother – doesn't account for clinical reality. "Of course, as obstetricians we have a passion for caring for both the mother and the baby, but there are clinical situations where the mom's health or life is in jeopardy, and no matter what we do, the baby is going to be lost," she says.

The Idaho abortion law uses the term "unborn child" as opposed to the words "embryo" or "fetus" – language that implies the fetus has the same rights as other people.

Shots - Health News

The science of ivf: what to know about alabama's 'extrauterine children' ruling.

Mary Ziegler , a legal historian at University of California - Davis, who is writing a book on fetal personhood, describes it as the "North Star" of the anti-abortion rights movement. She says this case will be the first time the Supreme Court justices will be considering a statute that uses that language.

"I think we may get clues about the future of bigger conflicts about fetal personhood," she explains, depending on how the justices respond to this idea. "Not just in the context of this statute or emergency medical scenarios, but in the context of the Constitution."

ADF has dismissed the idea that this case is an attempt to expand fetal rights. "This case is, at root, a question about whether or not the federal government can affect a hostile takeover of the practice of medicine in all 50 states by misinterpreting a long-standing federal statute to contain a hidden nationwide abortion mandate," Bangert says.

4. The election looms large

Ziegler suspects the justices will allow Idaho's abortion law to remain as is. "The Supreme Court has let Idaho's law go into effect, which suggests that the court is not convinced by the Biden administration's arguments, at least at this point," she notes.

Trump backed a federal abortion ban as president. Now, he says he wouldn't sign one

Whatever the decision, it will put abortion squarely back in the national spotlight a few months before the November election. "It's a reminder on the political side of things, that Biden and Trump don't really control the terms of the debate on this very important issue," Zielger observes. "They're going to be things put on everybody's radar by other actors, including the Supreme Court."

The justices will hear arguments in the case on Wednesday morning. A decision is expected by late June or early July.

Correction April 23, 2024

An earlier version of this story did not mention the rape and incest exception to Idaho's abortion ban. A person who reports rape or incest to police can end a pregnancy in Idaho in the first trimester.

• Abortion rights
• Supreme Court