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).
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
By Stan Soocher
Can the settlement of a lawsuit by one profit participant in a TV production be used to increase the contingent compensation provisions of other profit participants in the show?
In-House Counsel Perspective on Negotiating Social Media Influencer Contracts
By Chris O’Malley
With the FTC amping up its scrutiny in the social media influencer space, in-house counsel has an opportunity to mitigate risk and help their companies get more bang for their influencer marketing buck.
Pursuing AI Programmers and Third Parties over Alleged Rights Violations Caused by AI Software
By Jonathan Bick
Because AIs are capable of causing harm but cannot be a legal entity, they are not held accountable by court action. Several current and future possibilities exist to resolve AI difficulties. Current options involve identifying indirect liability. Future options include but are not limited to changing the law to make an AI a legal person and/or changing the law to make AI programing an ultra-hazardous activity.
By Entertainment Law & Finance Staff
Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.