Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Copyright Infringement; Sec. 505
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a defense motion under Sec. 505 of the Copyright Act for attorney fees and costs incurred in successfully defending against a song infringement claim. Lowe v. Loud Records, 01-1797. The district court previously decided that plaintiff Michael Lowe had granted the defendants, which included hip-hop producer Dr. Dre, an implied license to use Lowe's “West Coast Beat” in the song “X” by Xihibit. The court then dismissed Lowe's state negligence claim for lack of supplemental jurisdiction. Dr. Dre moved for a Sec. 505 award of $64,992.50 in attorney fees and $8,569.94 in costs, noting that he had been responsible for the defense of nine California defendants.
The district court first noted that Young was entitled to the Sec. 505 award because Lowe had admitted giving the defendants “West Coast Beat” to use. According to the court: “In light of Lowe defeating his own claim, it appears that the factual and legal components of Lowe's copyright infringement claim were objectively unreasonable and, it can be argued, frivolous.” The court awarded the full defense cost request but reduced Dr. Dre's attorney fees request to $26,609.40 by determining the portion of the total attorney fees charged that were reasonably expended in defending against the copyright infringement claim.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a motion for attorney fees by prevailing copyright infringement defendants. Penguin Books U.S.A. Inc. v. New Christian Church of Full Endeavor Ltd., 96-4126. Penguin Books had filed suit, claiming infringement of its text “A Course in Miracles.” But Penguin Book's copyright was found invalid due to prior publication without copyright notice. The defendants then moved for an award of attorney fees under Sec. 505 of the Copyright Act. The district court decided, however, that the defendants had failed to show that Penguin Books' claim was objectively unreasonable. According to the court: “While Plaintiffs' suit was ultimately unsuccessful, a preliminary injunction against the Church was obtained, Plaintiffs' claim withstood summary judgment, and Plaintiffs were able to eliminate twelve of the thirteen affirmative defenses asserted by the Church. … It was only after a three-day trial that certain complex factual issues were eventually determined in the Church's favor and the copyright was rendered invalid.”
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?