Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Broadcasters around the globe know that Americans want access to digital content and that they often ignore who provides it to them. For business reasons, tax reasons or to try to avoid liability under copyright law, many of these broadcasters intentionally do not set up operations in the United States. However, when these broadcasters transmit content for which they do not have authorization, they may be in violation of the copyright holder's rights.
Nonetheless, they have continued to do so because until recently there was an unanswered question as to whether U.S. copyright law could be used to protect against these actions. With the knowledge of this ambiguity in the law, coupled with the potential costs of U.S. litigation for both parties, broadcasters could rely on the fact that many copyright holders would be dissuaded from trying to enforcing their rights.
Recently — and likely to the dismay of many foreign broadcasters — in Spanski Enterprises v. Telewizja Polska S.A., 883 F.3d 904 (D.C. Cir. 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit took up an issue of first impression for the federal appellate courts: Whether any extraterritorial limits of the copyright law would relieve the liability of foreign content disseminators that send their content into the United States. Unequivocally, the D.C. Circuit held that a content provider's location would not in and of itself relieve it of liability, and put copyright holders in a stronger position when trying to police unauthorized uses of their assets.
Spanski was a dispute between a copyright owner and its licensee. The national public television broadcaster of Poland — defendant TV Polska — owned, operated and created content for several Polish-language television channels. The plaintiff, Spanski Enterprises, was a licensee of TV Polska, who after a previous dispute received the exclusive right to perform certain of TV Polska's content in North and South America.
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.
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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?