Features

A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, led by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, held that the phrase “full costs” in §505 of the Copyright Act means all of the costs specifically enumerated in the general cost-shifting statutes, such as transcripts and fees for court-appointed experts and interpreters.

Features

The Supreme Court had granted cert in <i>Fourth Estate</i> to resolve a split in the federal circuit courts as to whether §411(a) of the Copyright Act could be read to allow commencement of an infringement action once a registration application filed with the Copyright Office is complete (the “application approach”) or, instead, only (subject to limited statutorily specified exceptions) upon issuance by the Copyright Office of the registration (the “registration approach”).

Features

In Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split decades in the making by holding that a copyright is not "registered" within the meaning of the Copyright Act unless and until a registration certificate actually has issued.

Features

<i><b>The Federal Circuit's Threat to Software Innovation in the </i>Oracle v. Google<i>Decisions</i>&lt;</b><p>The Federal Circuit decisions in the Oracle v. Google copyright case rattled Silicon Valley not simply because the decisions upended software developers' understandings of copyright law, but also because the decisions do not comport with the disruptive ethos of the technology industry.

Columns & Departments

In celebration of International Women's Day two years ago, State Street Global Advisors unveiled Fearless Girl at Bowling Green in the Financial District in Manhattan. Commissioned by State Street from the artist Kristen Visbal, the work has since become a part of the zeitgeist amidst global conversations about gender parity, diversity, and inclusion on a broader scale. Now, some two years later, Fearless Girl is raising additional intellectual property questions.

Features

On March 7, 1994, the U.S. Supreme Court decided for the first time that a parody may be a copyright fair use. In the 25 years that followed, the High Court's unanimous 9-0 ruling in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Inc., has been cited in more than 500 court decisions. But the Supreme Court's pronouncement left questions and controversies in its wake.

Features

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently issued a long-awaited ruling in <i>Capitol Records LLC v. ReDigi Inc.</i>, affirming summary judgment in favor of Capitol Records and its record label co-plaintiffs in a case that raised issues of first impression concerning first sale and fair use in the age of digital music distribution.

Features

Since the advent of the Internet, the music industry has been in a pitched battle to combat online piracy. Initially, the industry focused on shutting down services that offered peer-to-peer or other similar platforms, such as Napster, Aimster and Grokster. For a time, the industry also focused on filing claims against individual infringers to dissuade others from engaging similar conduct. In recent years, the industry seems to have shifted focus toward Internet Service Providers.