Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal courts have long disagreed over whether the unauthorized “making available” of a plaintiff’s works to the public is sufficient to constitute copyright infringement under the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §106(3). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holds the view that actual distribution of the works is required. See, e.g., Perfect 10 Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., 487 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2007). The Fourth Circuit, on the other hand, has taken the position that for purposes of an infringement analysis, a library, for example, distributes a work when it “holds a copy in its collection, lists the copy in its card file, and makes the copy available to the public.” Hotaling v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 118 F.3d 199 (4th Cir. 1997).
*May exclude premium content
By Richard S.J. Hung, Alex S. Yap and Stephen J.H. Liu
Courts are increasingly excluding all evidence relating to post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, except when it is used for impeachment. This article reviews recent decisions on this issue from some of the nation’s busiest patent districts.
By Stan Soocher
The significance of the U.S. Tax Court decision for celebrities and their estates is clear: Prior to now, as Tax Court Judge Mark V. Holmes noted: “We haven’t had a case directly addressing the taxability of the image and likeness.”
By Eric Alan Stone and Catherine Nyarady
In two recent cases, the Second Circuit provided guidance as to the circumstances that may give rise to liability for counterfeiting, as distinct from mere infringement, and addressed liability for contributory infringement for counterfeiting.
By Angela Morris
The Texas lawsuit alleged that the social video app and parent company ByteDance Ltd. copied software code, and deleted or altered copyright management information in the code, and then used the code in the app that has 175 million downloads.