Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Photographs on the Internet: Circuit Courts Examine Copyright Infringement
Two April 2019 circuit court cases clarified copyright infringement of photographs on the Internet. In a case of first impression before the Ninth Circuit, the court opined on the degree of financial benefit required to prove vicarious liability for copyright infringement. In addition, the panel examined jury instructions regarding willfulness in the context of statutory damages. In the Fourth Circuit, the court examined how the infringer's motives could affect the affirmative defense of fair use. Both cases serve as cautionary tales for those who takes photographs for their websites from the Internet without investigating copyright rights.
The Ninth Circuit on Proving Vicarious Liability for Copyright Infringement
Vicarious Liability and Willfulness
In Erickson Productions, Inc.; Jim Erickson v. Kraig Rudinger Kast, No. 15-168801, D.C. No. 5:13-cv-05472-HRL (9th Cir. April 16, 2019), the defendant Kast had hired Only Websites, a website developer, to revamp the website of his business Atherton Trust. Early in the design process, Kast asked Only Websites to use one of Wells Fargo's websites as a model for the redevelopment project. According to the court, “Kast also stated in emails that he wanted to mimic Wells Fargo's website.” The Wells Fargo website contained photos that plaintiff Erickson had licensed to the financial institution.
Only Websites used three of Erickson's photos on the Atherton Trust developmental website without permission. The record does not indicate whether the developer did this unilaterally or at Kast's request. The circuit court decision reports that Kast knew of the photos at least as early as January 2011. He did not, however, order Only Websites to take them down until six months later, when he received a cease and desist letter from plaintiff Erickson. While Kast ensured the photographs' prompt takedown at this juncture, he refused to pay any damages. Instead, Kast blamed the website developer for the unlicensed use of Erickson's copyrighted photographs.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?