Copyrights

A start-up that provides a technology that filters movies for profanity, violence and other objectionable content has vowed to take a copyright battle against Hollywood all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court after a federal judge granted an injunction blocking its service.

It has been 18 years since the DMCA was signed into law. It was created to balance the security and rights of copyright holders with the growing influence of digital communications. But today it is facing serious criticism about its usefulness from every key stakeholder — creators, distributors and consumers alike.

This article discusses disputes involving the use of copyrighted works or intellectual property underlying that work, under a license, or in one case, under an implied license. The parties thereto are not nearly as well-known, but the legal conclusions reached may have farther reaching implications.

Record companies and music publishers will get more damages and a second shot at holding the founder of MP3tunes liable for additional copyright infringement following a federal appeals court decision on Oct. 25.

When, as is often the case, actual copyright damages are difficult to prove, statutory damages may provide the best option for recovery. Recently, in Friedman v. Live Nation Merchandise, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered, among other things, two issues greatly affecting the amount of statutory copyright damages: 1) willfulness; and 2) the number of separate awards available for downstream infringements.

A photo agency that sued the owner of online tabloid Oh No They Didn't! for copyright infringement is hoping to reverse a ruling that threw out its case, prompting Pinterest and others to weigh in and argue that reviving the case could erode legal protections afforded to Internet service providers.