Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recent Court Rulings on 'Embedding' Foreshadow Split In Circuits
When and how can someone else's visual content be displayed on a website without the website operator running afoul of copyright law? When and how can someone else display the website operator's visual content? A recent ruling out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York — on a popular practice at the center of these issues for entertainment and media companies — may upend the current paradigm. Nicklen v. Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., No. 1:20-cv-10300 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
In Nicklen, a wildlife photographer/videographer posted original footage of a starving polar bear to his Instagram and Facebook accounts, highlighting the impact of global warming. The video went viral. The defendants, a news outlet and publishing group, posted the video in full on their websites. In posting the video, they did not copy the video and stream it from their servers. Instead, the defendants posted Hyper Test Markup Language (HTML) that directed web browsers to retrieve the video from the social media servers for viewing on the defendants' websites. This is known as "embedding." It links to the original post without storing the work on a server or creating a copy of it. The video of the polar bear appeared within the body of the defendants' article even when a reader took no action to retrieve the video or navigate to Nicklen's social media accounts, and even when a reader did not have a Facebook or Instagram account. Nicklen brought suit claiming that this violated his exclusive reproduction, distribution and display rights under the Copyright Act.
The Server Test
First, let's look at the world before Nicklen. Way back in 2007 — iPhones had just hit the market and YouTube was only two years old — the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit established what is known as the "server test" for determining whether embedding violated the Copyright Act's exclusive "display" right.
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
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.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.