When, as is often the case, actual copyright damages are difficult to prove, statutory damages may provide the best option for recovery. Recently, in <i>Friedman v. Live Nation Merchandise</i>, 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.
Both before and after the passage of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) in May 2016, which created a federal civil cause of action for trade secrets misappropriation, much ink was spilled over the controversial “seizure” provision.
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.
The longtime general counsel of Black Entertainment Television (BET) has a starring role in actress Gabrielle Union's contract case against the network. Union alleges she was duped into working on more episodes of her BET Networks show Being Mary Jane — without a break between seasons four and five to allow her time to continue to pursue her film career between the TV production schedule.
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.
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 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.
As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?
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.
