Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Appeals Court Backs Nickelback In Copyright Infringement Case
In Johnston v. Kroeger, No. 23-50254 (5th Cir. Feb. 19, 2024), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment for copyright infringement based on a lack of evidence of factual copying.
Kirk Johnston, a musician and songwriter for a band called Snowblind, sued members of the popular band Nickelback and their record label and publishing company for copyright infringement. In 2001, Johnston wrote the musical composition for the song Rock Star, for which he registered the copyright and claims that Nickelback copied in their similarly titled song Rockstar. The perceived similarities between the songs led Johnston to file a copyright infringement suit in 2020. Nickelback moved for summary judgment, and the district court referred the motion to a magistrate judge, who granted the motion, concluding that Johnston had not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of factual copying by Nickelback.
The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and dismissed Johnston's claim. Johnston appealed this decision to the Fifth Circuit, arguing that: 1) Nickelback indeed had a reasonable opportunity to access his song; and 2) the district court applied the incorrect standard for determining similarity, but, even under the striking similarity standard, the songs are too alike to be explained by something other than copying. Finding no merit in Johnston's contentions, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.