Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Copyright Misuse: An Overview
The doctrine of copyright misuse is a fairly recent development in copyright law. Since it was first recognized less than 20 years ago, the judicially created doctrine has emerged as a valid defense in at least several circuits, while other courts have been reluctant to accept it. In those courts that have recognized it as a defense, there is a split among the circuits as to when it can be maintained. Some courts require a defendant to show that the plaintiff's misconduct directly relates to the merits of the controversy involved in the litigation, while other courts have concluded that if the alleged misuse contravenes public policy that copyright law seeks to protect (i.e., 'to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts'), the defense will not be stricken. Beyond the use of the doctrine as a defense, some litigants have also sought to raise copyright misuse as a counterclaim. However, at least two courts have refused to accept this theory, rejecting such an application outright.
Generally
Copyright misuse derives from the patent misuse defense, which the U.S. Supreme Court created in Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488 (1942). In Morton Salt, the patent holder had used its patent to restrain competition in an unpatented product. Id. at 404. Consequently, the Court held that as a result of this misuse a trial court may 'rightly decline to entertain a suit for infringement, and should do so at least until it is made to appear that the improper practice has been abandoned and that the consequences of the misuse of the patent have been dissipated.' Id at. 493.
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?