A recent decision by the Michigan Supreme Court has provided more clarity about how a state court is likely to rule in asbestos cases alleging third-party liability. States appear to be looking more to the nature of the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.
COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT/LACK OF ACCESS; COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT/SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY; COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION/DEPOSIT COPY; RECORD-DISTRIBUTION DEALS/DERIVATIVE-SONGS RIGHTS; RECORD-LABEL VALUATION/EXPERT WITNESSES; RIGHT OF PUBLICITY/FIRST AMENDMENT
From YouTube's perspective, taking burdensome steps to prevent the posting of potentially infringing content could destroy the business model and consumer goodwill upon which it relies. [Although YouTube recently announced it was tesing a new copyright filtering process.] This information sharing/rights protection dilemma is not solely limited to YouTube ' many Web sites and other service providers face decisions every day concerning the propriety of user-generated content. The U.S. Copyright Act may provide a critical solution to that dilemma.
Copyright-infringement claims can go forward against Mary J. Blige, the 'Queen of Hip-Hop Soul,' the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, reversing a lower court determination. Davis v. Blige.
Copyright owners who are considering licensing their content for online exploitations must understand that they are venturing into still largely uncharted waters with few reliable partners. It's better than it was in 2000 ' or even 2003 ' but it's still not an entirely stable environment with dangerous shoals along the route. Don't assume that words you have seen in contracts for decades have the same meaning to your online licensee as they would to a court.
The Texas Supreme Court has made it clear that it considers the disclosure of the identities of medical or other causation experts willing to link plaintiffs' injuries to defendants' products or behavior as 'basic information' without which defendants cannot mount an appropriate defense. At least in the case of mass tort claims, trial courts are barred from setting trial dates or otherwise moving cases forward without providing defendants with a real opportunity to obtain basic causation information from plaintiffs' counsel.
Recent cases in e-commerce law and in the e-commerce industry.
The owner of a business can claim as lost earning capacity in a personal-injury action only the working time lost due to injuries and harm to future earning capacity, not the business' alleged profits in perpetuity.
Once again, a German court has ruled on the GNU (programs of all-free software) General Public License ('GPL') and confirmed its enforceability in Germany. The judgment was handed down on July 24 (Landgericht Mnchen I, decision of 24th July 2007 - 7 O 5245/07 - not final); still, it is noteworthy that the GPL provisions so far have received positive evaluation by German courts.
When conducting criminal investigations about possible corporate wrongdoing, in alleged defective-products matters and other cases, government agents often seek to interview company executives and other employees ' of old-line bricks-and-mortar and e-commerce companies ' 'by ambush' outside the office, to minimize the likelihood that a supervisor or a company lawyer might intervene to thwart the interview. There is nothing improper in using this investigative technique; nevertheless, employees should know their legal rights and understand the risks they take when they submit to such surprise interrogations.
