Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Southern District of New York recently resolved a question that neither the Southern District nor the Second Circuit had ever squarely faced: Can the lawful owner of an art object create and post a photograph of that object in connection with the sale of the object through an online platform such as eBay, without the permission of the owner of copyright in the object? The sale of the object is clearly permitted under the first sale doctrine, codified at §109(a) of the Copyright Act, but by its terms §109(a) only creates an affirmative defense to the distribution of the physical object itself: “the owner of a particular copy … lawfully made under this title … is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy.” The statute does not allow the making of a reproduction or a derivative work, such as a photo, or the display or distribution of such an image, and indeed courts (notably the Ninth Circuit) have sometimes found similar activities to be infringing.
The California Consumer Privacy Act: Everything You Wanted to Know But Were Afraid to Ask
By Alan L. Friel
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
Supreme Court, Finally, Takes Up Google v. Oracle
By Scott Graham
The U.S. Supreme Court has jumped into a titanic copyright battle between Oracle Corp. and Google LLC with both barrels. The court’s involvement is sure to reignite a 50-year-old debate over how much, if any, software should be subject to copyright, and the contours of the fair use defense in the digital age.
More Chinese Companies Are Joining U.S. Firms to Fight Patent Trolls
By Phillip Bantz
Some of China’s largest companies have banded together with major brands in the United States and elsewhere to neutralize “patent trolls,” an indication that the country’s firms are becoming increasingly concerned about patent infringement litigation.
By Anthony H. Cataldo
U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Booking.com Trademark Case