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).
By Stan Soocher
A thorny concern for lawyers is whether — and if so, when — an attorney/client relationship has been formed with a party with whom the lawyer has entered into a business arrangement. Current litigation over an agreement involving theatrical production rights to the Tony Award-winning musical Man of La Mancha offers some perspective on the issue.
By Matthew Windman
While the theaters of Broadway remain dark, the New York theater community has been left to grapple with challenging legal issues relating to governmental directives, contracts, insurance coverage, refunds, presenting live and prerecorded content on the Internet, and what health and safety measures will be needed once the theaters can reopen.
By Shaleen J. Patel and Sushmitha Rajeevan
In the process of creating new content, AI, which has moved into the entertainment industry, may create copies of copyrighted works in memory storage as a byproduct of its overall output sequence. This article explores authorship and ownership of such AI-generated content, and to what extent, if any, can copyrights be infringed upon when AI reproduces copyrighted works for machine learning.
By Ellen Bardash
In a decision that narrowed what actions can be brought by Delaware companies’ stockholders in the context of a merger, the Delaware Court of Chancery dismissed claims brought against former 21st Century Fox executives, including three members of the Murdoch family.