Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
NY District Court Adds to Confusion Surrounding Embedding
In the rapidly changing environment surrounding the legal issue of embedding (a type of inline linking that displays images and videos hosted somewhere other than the current publisher's servers), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has added another ruling that places the liability associated with such behavior in uncertain waters. On Nov. 2, 2020, the court dismissed plaintiff Michael Barret Boesen's Complaint against United Sports Publications, Ltd. (USP) on the grounds that it failed to allege a claim for which relief could be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). Boesen v. United Sports Publs., Ltd., No. 20-CV-1552 (ARR) (SIL), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203682 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2020)
Embedding social media has been a commonplace practice for years. Indeed, it is still commonplace to see Instagram and twitter posts embedded throughout other publishers' content. Such a practice seemed safe under the Ninth Circuit's "server test" adopted in Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc, 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007). However, in recent years, the notion that embedders may be liable as copyright infringers has resurfaced as courts outside of the Ninth Circuit address the issue. See, e.g., Goldman v. Breitbart News Network LLC, 302 F. Supp. 3d 585, 590 (S.D.N.Y. 2018); Leader's Inst., LLC v. Jackson, No. 3:14-CV-3572-B, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19355, 29-30 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2017); McGucken v. Newsweek LLC, No. 19 Civ. 9617 (KPF), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96126 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 1, 2020).
On Dec. 6, 2019, world-renowned tennis player Caroline Wozniacki announced her retirement from the sport on her Instagram page. The post included a low-resolution version of a photograph taken by Boesen in 2002 depicting a young Wozniacki about to serve. That same day, USP ran an article embedding Wozniacki's original Instagram post featuring a cropped version of Boesen's photograph. USP embedded the post without a license or permission from Boesen. After Boesen filed an amended complaint for copyright infringement, USP moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Discussing the merits of Boesen's complaint, the court analyzed whether or not USP's article constituted fair use.
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.
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?