DOCSLIB.ORG

CLL's Copyright Review 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CLL's Copyright Review 2019 Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman Copyright Review 2019 “Recent Developments In Copyright” Selected Annotated Cases By Thomas Kjellberg with Joelle Milov and Jeffrey Chery Dasha Chestukhin Raphael Nemes Ariana Sarfarazi George Sciarrino Danielle Siegel Emily Stein Lyndsey Waddington Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. 114 West 47th Street, New York, NY 10036-1525 (212) 790-9200 ∙ www.cll.com ∙ fax (212) 575-0671 These annotations cover cases reported since our report at the 42nd Copyright Society Annual Meeting of 2018. © 2019 Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES ........................................................... 1 A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction ...................................................................................... 1 B. Personal Jurisdiction and Venue ............................................................................. 3 C. Pleadings ................................................................................................................. 8 D. Standing ................................................................................................................. 11 E. Miscellaneous ........................................................................................................ 14 II. COPYRIGHTABILITY ................................................................................................. 14 A. Originality ............................................................................................................. 14 B. Pictorial, Graphic and Sculptural Works ............................................................... 17 C. Compilations and Derivative Works ..................................................................... 19 D. Miscellaneous ........................................................................................................ 19 III. OWNERSHIP ................................................................................................................. 20 A. Works Made for Hire ............................................................................................ 20 B. Transfer of Ownership .......................................................................................... 24 C. Termination of Transfers ....................................................................................... 25 D. Joint Works and Co-Ownership ............................................................................ 25 E. Contracts and Licenses .......................................................................................... 27 IV. FORMALITIES .............................................................................................................. 30 A. Registration ........................................................................................................... 30 V. INFRINGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 32 A. Access .................................................................................................................... 32 B. Copying and Substantial Similarity ....................................................................... 35 C. Contributory/Vicarious Infringement .................................................................... 45 D. Miscellaneous ........................................................................................................ 49 VI. DEFENSES/EXEMPTIONS .......................................................................................... 52 A. Fair Use ................................................................................................................. 52 B. Statute of Limitations ............................................................................................ 59 C. Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel ........................................................................... 59 D. First Sale Doctrine ................................................................................................. 62 E. Misuse ................................................................................................................... 63 F. Miscellaneous ........................................................................................................ 63 VII. REMEDIES .................................................................................................................... 68 A. Damages and Profits .............................................................................................. 68 B. Attorneys’ Fees ..................................................................................................... 79 C. Injunction/Impoundment ....................................................................................... 90 D. Miscellaneous ........................................................................................................ 93 i VIII. PREEMPTION ............................................................................................................... 96 IX. DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT .......................................................... 105 X. VISUAL ARTISTS RIGHTS ACT .............................................................................. 110 ii TABLE OF CASES Cases 16 Casa Duse, LLC v. Merkin, 740 F. App’x 223 (2d Cir. 2018) ......................................................................................... 79 ABS Entm’t v. CBS Corp., 908 F.3d 405 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................... 19 Alan Ross Mach. Corp v. Machinio Corp., No. 17-3569, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195415 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2018) ...................................................................................... 108 Am. Dig. Sys. v. Nelson, No. 17-293, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15706 (D. Utah Jan. 30, 2019) .................................. 88 Architecttura Inc. v. DSGN Assocs., No. 16-3021, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124468 (N.D. Tex. July 25, 2018) .......................... 10 Art of Design, Inc. v. Pontoon Boat, LLC, No. 16-595, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101321 (N.D. Ind. June 18, 2018) ............................ 18 Astor-White v. Strong, 733 F. App'x 407 (9th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................ 36 Batiste v. Lewis, No. 17-4435, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69130 (E.D. La. Apr. 23, 2019) .............................. 34 Batra v. PopSugar, Inc., No. 18-3752, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20299 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2019) .................. 8, 99, 106 Bell v. Startup Prod., LLC, No. 18-02, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 197703 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 20, 2018) ............................... 67 Bell v. Vacuforce, LLC, 908 F.3d 1075 (7th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................. 93 Brammer v. Violent Hues Prods., LLC, No. 18-1763, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 12572 (4th Cir. Mar. 19, 2019) ............................... 53 Brittney Gobble Photography v. Wenn Ltd., No. 16-306, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39414 (E.D. Tenn. Feb. 19, 2019) ............................ 77 BWP Media USA, Inc. v. Polyvore, Inc., 922 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2019) .................................................................................................. 49 Cambridge Univ. Press. v. Albert, 906 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................... 54 Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc., 910 F.3d 649 (2d Cir. 2018) .......................................................................................... 52, 62 Carrell v. Origami Owl, LLC, No. 18-694, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49522 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2019) .............................. 37 CENAPS Corp. v. Cmty. of Christ, No. 18-1276, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31138 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 27, 2019) ............................ 63 iii Clark v. Transp. Alternatives, Inc., No. 18-9985, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46274 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2019) ............................ 55 Close v. Sotheby’s, Inc., 894 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................. 96 Close v. Sotheby’s, Inc., 909 F.3d 1204 (9th Cir. 2018) ............................................................................................. 97 Cobbler Nev., LLC v. Gonzales, 901 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2018) ................................................................................. 47, 50, 81 Code Revision Comm’n v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc., 906 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2018) ........................................................................................... 19 Conan Props. Int’l LLC v. Sanchez, No. 17-162, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138203 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2018) ........................ 8, 90 Craig v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 16-5439, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53973 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2019) ........ 63, 71, 94, 105 Creazioni Artistiche Musicali, S.r.l. v. Carlin Am., Inc., No. 17-266, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 23765 (2d Cir. 2018)................................................. 11 D’Pergo Custom Guitars, Inc. v. Sweetwater Sound, Inc., No. 17-747, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6074 (D.N.H. 2019) .................................................. 14 Datacarrier S.A. v. WOCCU Servs. Grp., No. 16-122, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106090 (W.D. Wis. June 25, 2018) .......................... 87 Davidson v. United States, No. 13-942C, 2018 U.S. Claims LEXIS 801 (Fed. Cl. June 29, 2018) ........................ 54, 69 Design Basics, LLC v. Ashford Homes, LLC, No. 17-273, 2018 U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Open Source Is Changing IP Risk in the Soft Ware Supply Chain
    A New Wave of IP Risks: How Open Source is Changing IP Risk in the Software Supply Chain Table of Contents Introduction . 3 Brief Overview of Open Source and Where It Stands Today . 3 The Interplay Between Open Source and IP Risk: . 5 Understanding the Challenges Specific IP Risks in the Open Source Software Supply Chain . 7 Copyright Infringement . 7 Reputation . 9 Exposing IP Secrets . 10 Impacts on the Partner/Customer Relationship . 11 Patent Infringement . 12 Looking Ahead: The Future of Open Source Litigation . 13 Conclusion . 14 I. Introduction Open source software has been integrated into nearly is a testament to the success of open source, it also gives every industry and sector today . According to a 2016 rise to unique challenges for businesses, particularly in survey, approximately 90% of today’s organizations report the area of intellectual property . If a company cannot using open source software .1 That percentage has almost even find all of its open source code or identify its open certainly grown since . One likely reason for open source’s source dependencies, they are also likely unable to boom in popularity is the distinct cost savings it gives ensure that they are remaining compliant with open companies who use it .2 The use of open source software is source licenses and protecting themselves from business now so widespread that many companies are unaware of or reputational risk . how and where it is used, and would be unable to identify all their open source code if asked to do so . In this paper, we will examine the most common IP risks that arise from the use of open source software today, As Mark Radcliffe, a partner in the Silicon Valley office of including copyright infringement, patent infringement, DLA Piper specializing in IP and open source, explains, reputational risk, exposure of IP secrets, and the impact on “virtually all software now has a large number of open the partner/customer relationship .
    [Show full text]
  • Volume 30 Spring 2014
    SYRACUSE JOURNAL OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LAW VOLUME 30 SPRING 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Mass Copyright Infringement Litigation: Of Trolls, Pornography, Settlement and Joinder Christopher Civil………………………………………………………………………………...2 Notice and Manifestation of Assent to Browse-Wrap Agreements in the Age of Evolving Crawlers, Bots, Spiders and Scrapers: How Courts Are Tethered to Their Application of Register and Cairo and Why Congress Should Mandate Use of the Robots Exclusion Standard to Prevent Circumvention of Responsibility Michael Laven…………………………………………………………………………………..56 Seeing Red: Christian Louboutin’s Protection of His Trademark Through His Battle with Yves St. Laurent Sachpreet Bains…………………………………………………………………………………73 I Need a Lawyer: Establishing Statewide New York Communication Access Fund to Secure Legal Accessibility to Deaf and Hard of Hearing Clients Through Video Remote Interpreting Services in Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act YooNa Lim………………………………………………………………………………………99 Can You Hear Me Now? Spectrum is Shaping the Telecommunication Industry in an Increasingly Connected America James Zino……………………………………………………………………………………..131 Review of “I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy” Edited by: Sarah Richmond, Geraint Rees, and Sarah J.L. Edwards Jenna Furman…………………………………………………………………………………160 SYRACUSE JOURNAL OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY LAW VOLUME 30 SPRING 2014 2013-2014 EDITORIAL STAFF EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Brittany Jones MANAGING EDITOR Tanjeev Thandi LEAD ARTICLE EDITORS FORM & ACCURACY EDITORS Alessandra
    [Show full text]
  • Monetizing Infringement
    University of Colorado Law School Colorado Law Scholarly Commons Articles Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship 2020 Monetizing Infringement Kristelia García University of Colorado Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles Part of the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, and the Legislation Commons Citation Information Kristelia García, Monetizing Infringement, 54 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 265 (2020), available at https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/articles/1308. Copyright Statement Copyright protected. Use of materials from this collection beyond the exceptions provided for in the Fair Use and Educational Use clauses of the U.S. Copyright Law may violate federal law. Permission to publish or reproduce is required. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Colorado Law Faculty Scholarship at Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Colorado Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Monetizing Infringement Kristelia García* The deterrence of copyright infringement and the evils of piracy have long been an axiomatic focus of both legislators and scholars. The conventional view is that infringement must be curbed and/or punished in order for copyright to fulfill its purported goals of incentivizing creation and ensuring access to works. This Essay proves this view false by demonstrating that some rightsholders don’t merely tolerate, but actually encourage infringement, both explicitly and implicitly, in a variety of different situations and for one common reason: they benefit from it.
    [Show full text]
  • The (Unfinished) Ballad of Gunslinger/ ©Troll Richard Liebowitz by Steven D
    For exclusive use of MLRC members and other parties specifically authorized by MLRC. © 2019 Media Law Resource Center, Inc. Page 8 August 2019 MLRC MediaLawLetter The (Unfinished) Ballad of Gunslinger/ ©Troll Richard Liebowitz By Steven D. Zansberg You are probably already far more familiar than you wish you were with Richard Liebowitz, the notorious copyright plaintiff’s attorney based in Valley Stream, New York. Mr. Liebowitz has gained notoriety (some might say ignominy) for having filed over 1,500 copyright infringement actions across the nation (some 1,100 in S.D.N.Y.), and having been featured in Slate, The Hollywood Reporter, and even has his own Wikipedia page (do you?). For those fortunate few unfamiliar with Mr. Liebowitz, his entrepreneurial spirit follows a well-developed business model: (1) represent photographers who have registered (or soon will register) their original works (now a requirement for instituting copyright infringement actions, and for recovery of statutory damages of up to $150K/violation plus attorneys’ fees); (2) find infringing (non-licensed) uses of those photos online by using a reverse-image search engine like Google Images, Tin Eye, Pixsy, or Berify; (3) demand an exorbitant amount to settle such cases (typically $25K per photo, most of which would command license fees of, at best, in the tens or hundreds of dollars) and then agree to a settlement figure that is a fraction (often less than half) of the initial extortionate demand. You are probably already far more Because it inevitably would cost more than the insurance familiar than you wish you were deductible to defend such a case, the defendants – many of with Richard Liebowitz, the whom are large media companies – make the rational business notorious copyright plaintiff’s attorney.
    [Show full text]
  • Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling Matthew As G
    Loyola University Chicago, School of Law LAW eCommons Faculty Publications & Other Works 2018 Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling Matthew aS g Jake Haskell Follow this and additional works at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling Matthew Sag &Jake Haskell * ABSTRACT: In this Article, we offer both a legal and a pragmaticframework for defending against copyright trolls. Lawsuits alleging online copyright infringement by John Doe defendants have accounted for roughly half of all copyright casesfiled in the United States over the past threeyears. In the typical case, the plaintiffs claims of infringement rely on a poorly substantiatedform pleading and are targeted indiscriminately at noninfringers as well as infringers. This practice is a subset of the broaderproblem of opportunistic litigation, but it persists due to certain unique features of copyright law and the technical complexity of Internet technology. The plaintiffs bringing these cases target hundreds or thousands of defendants nationwide and seek quick settlements pricedjust low enough that it is less expensive for the defendant to pay rather than to defend the claim, regardless of the claim's merits. We report new empirical data on the continued growth of this form of copyright trolling in the United States. We also undertake a detailed analysis of the legal andfactual underpinnings of these cases. Despite theirunderlying weakness, plaintiffs have exploited information asymmetries, the high cost of federal court litigation, and the extravagant threat of statutory damages for copyright infringement to leverage settlementsfrom the guilty and the innocent alike.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 512 of Title 17 a Report of the Register of Copyrights May 2020 United States Copyright Office
    united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 united states copyright office section 512 of title 17 a report of the register of copyrights may 2020 U.S. Copyright Office Section 512 Report ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The publication of this Report is the final output of several years of effort by the Copyright Office to assist Congress with evaluating ways to update the Copyright Act for the 21st century. The genesis of this Report occurred in the midst of the two years of copyright review hearings held by the House Judiciary Committee that spanned the 113th and 114th Congresses. At the twentieth and final hearing in April 2015, the Copyright Office proposed several policy studies to aid Congress in its further review of the Copyright Act. Two studies already underway at the time were completed after the hearings: Orphan Works and Mass Digitization (2015), which the Office later supplemented with a letter to Congress on the “Mass Digitization Pilot Program” (2017), and The Making Available Right in the United States (2016). Additional studies proposed during the final hearing that were subsequently issued by the Office included: the discussion document Section 108 of Title 17 (2017), Section 1201 of Title 17 (2017), and Authors, Attribution, and Integrity: Examining Moral Rights in the United States (2019). The Office also evaluated how the current copyright system works for visual artists, which resulted in the letter to Congress titled “Copyright and Visual Works: The Legal Landscape of Opportunities and Challenges” (2019). Shortly after the hearings ended, two Senators requested a review of the role of copyright law in everyday consumer products and the Office subsequently published a report, Software-Enabled Computer Products (2016).
    [Show full text]
  • |||GET||| Girl Zines 1St Edition
    GIRL ZINES 1ST EDITION DOWNLOAD FREE Alison Piepmeier | 9780814767733 | | | | | Brian Cassidy, Bookseller If the copyright page tells you that the book is a first edition from William Morrow and Company, but the spine of the book tells you that it was published by Walter J. Nov 10, Jason rated it it was amazing. Retrieved 21 November Feb 12, Caitlin Constantine rated it really liked it. Girl Zines 1st edition and printing can be used fairly Girl Zines 1st edition in talking about collectible books, Girl Zines 1st edition in regard to modern fiction. By Tim Ott. Women's Studies. An open-source wiki site solely for zines, small press publications and independent media as well as their history. Prose Studies: History, Theory, Criticism. Williams' Crawdaddy! Intellectual property activism. There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Published on Sep 14, Copyright Alliance. More filters. Indeed, many zines were transformed into Webzinessuch as Boing Boing or monochrom. I've passed this along to the other members of my group as a key piece of research material. While some of the best designs may take only moments of inspiration, others require days if not weeks of careful consideration, revision and refinement. Jun 16, Anna rated it it was amazing Shelves: favorites. Book club Girl Zines 1st edition can usually be identified Girl Zines 1st edition such by one of a few tell-tale signs. With each printing, the publisher removes a number from the line of numbers. In some cases, a number is moved from the left side of Girl Zines 1st edition line to the end of the right side as that printing is exhausted.
    [Show full text]
  • Use This Handy Guide for the Location of 36 Area
    SPECIAL ADVERTISING SECTION Use this handy guide for the location of 21. Parc Rittenhouse 36 area properties holding Open House 225 S. 18th Street on Saturday, October 20th and Sunday, Philadelphia, PA 19103 October 21st from 12-5pm. Tours are at the 22. Park Place at Garden State Park property location unless noted otherwise. 603 Haddonfield Road Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Join us for food, drinks, prizes and giveaways. FOR MORE INFORMATION VISIT phillymag.com/openhouse SPECIAL EVENT 1. 22 Front 11. The Ellington 23. Parkway 22 22 Front Street 1500 Chestnut Street, 19th Floor 501 N. 22nd Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Philadelphia, PA 19130 SALES OFFICE: 1608 Walnut Street, Suite 1303 12. Fairmount Court 24. Regency at Packer Park Philadelphia, PA 19103 801 N. Ringgold Street 2021 A Capri Court Philadelphia, PA 19130 Philadelphia, PA 19145 2. 23 A Condominium (Carriage House) SPECIAL Savory food sampling. 23 South 23rd Street EVENT 25. The Residences at Dockside Philadelphia, PA 19103 717 S. Christopher Columbus Boulevard 13. The Grande at Riverview Philadelphia, PA 19147 3. 1401 Walnut 200 West Elm † 1401 Walnut Street Conshohocken, Pa 19428 26. The Residences at Two Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103 50 S. 16th Street, 57th Floor SALES OFFICE: 14. Hilltop at Ridge Falls Philadelphia, PA 19102 1701 Walnut Street 3701 Falls Circle Join us for food and drinks. SPECIAL Philadelphia, PA 19103 Philadelphia, PA 19129 EVENT Enjoy food platters and specialty † SPECIAL 15. Mandeville Place EVENT drinks and beverages. 27. The Residences at the Ritz-Carlton 24th and Walnut Streets 10 Avenue of the Arts, 2nd Floor 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Filed an Amicus Brief
    NOS. 11-2820, 11-2858 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT CAPITOL RECORDS, INC., et al., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, V. JAMMIE THOMAS-RASSET, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. On Appeal From The United States District Court For The District of Minnesota Case No. 06-1497 Honorable Michael J. Davis, District Judge BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION, INTERNET ARCHIVE, ASSOCIATION OF RESEARCH LIBRARIES, ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE AND RESEARCH LIBRARIES, AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, AND PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE AND AFFIRMANCE Corynne McSherry Michael Barclay ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION 454 Shotwell Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Telephone: (415) 436-9333 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993 [email protected] Attorneys for Amici Curiae Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page Appellate Case: 11-2820 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2012 Entry ID: 3879140 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Internet Archive, Association of Research Libraries, Association of College And Research Libraries, The American Library Association and Public Knowledge (collectively, “Amici”) state that none of Amici has a parent corporation and that no publicly held company owns 10% or more of the stock of any of Amici. i Appellate Case: 11-2820 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2012 Entry ID: 3879140 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .................................................. 1 STATEMENT OF INTEREST ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Case for the Public Domain
    Brigham Young University Law School BYU Law Digital Commons Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2013 A Case for the Public Domain Clark D. Asay BYU Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Clark D. Asay, A Case for the Public Domain, 74 Oʜɪᴏ Sᴛ. L.J. 753 (2013). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BYU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BYU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Case for the Public Domain CLARK D. ASAY* Over the past several decades open license movements have proved highly successful in the software and content worlds. Such movements rely in part on the belief that greater freedom of use triggers innovative activity that is superiorto what a restrictive IP approachyields. Ironically, such open license movements rely on IP rights to promote their visions offreedom and openness. They do so through IP licenses that, while granting significantfreedoms, also impose certain conditions on users such as the "copyleft" requirement in the software world. Such movements rely on this IP-based approach due to fears that, without IP rights and such conditions, a tragedy of the commons would ensue. This Article argues that this IP-based approach, while perhaps helpful in the beginning, is no longer necessary in many cases and in fact prevents the movements from reaching theirfull potential. The IP-based approach has this effect by causing significant transactioncosts, often without offsetting benefits, resulting in a tragedy of the anti-commons.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uneasy Case Against Copyright Trolls
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2013 The Uneasy Case Against Copyright Trolls Shyamkrishna Balganesh University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Litigation Commons, and the Technology and Innovation Commons Repository Citation Balganesh, Shyamkrishna, "The Uneasy Case Against Copyright Trolls" (2013). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 425. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/425 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES THE UNEASY CASE AGAINST COPYRIGHT TROLLS SHYAMKRISHNA BALGANESH* ABSTRACT The copyright troll and the phenomenon of copyright trolling have thus far received surprisingly little attention in discussions of copyright law and policy. A copyright troll refers to an entity that acquires a tailored interest in a copyrighted work with the sole objective of enforcing claims relating to that work against copiers in a zealous and dogmatic manner. Not being a creator, distributor, performer, or indeed user of the protected work, the copyright troll operates entirely in the market for copyright claims. With specialized skills in monitoring and enforcing copyright infringement, the troll is able to lower its litigation costs, enabling it to bring claims against defendants that an ordinary copyright owner might have chosen not to. As a matter of law, the copyright troll’s model usually complies with all of copyright’s formal rules.
    [Show full text]
  • The Shifting Boundaries of Convergence Between U.S
    Brooklyn Journal of International Law Volume 41 Article 13 Issue 3 SYMPOSIUM: Reconsidering the Tax Treaty 2016 Copyright Competition: The hiS fting Boundaries of Convergence Between U.S. and Canadian Copyright Regimes in the Digital Age David Amar Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Transnational Law Commons Recommended Citation David Amar, Copyright Competition: The Shifting Boundaries of Convergence Between U.S. and Canadian Copyright Regimes in the Digital Age, 41 Brook. J. Int'l L. (2016). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/bjil/vol41/iss3/13 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. COPYRIGHT COMPETITION: THE SHIFTING BOUNDARIES OF CONVERGENCE BETWEEN U.S. AND CANADIAN COPYRIGHT REGIMES IN THE DIGITAL AGE INTRODUCTION s we move further and further into the digital age, it has Abecome increasingly easy to create, locate, develop, and share information online. With the near universal proliferation of the Internet in North America,1 measures have been taken to ensure that those who hold copyright in their created works may remain certain that their intellectual property rights remain protected.2 Additionally, the digital age has afforded users man- ifold opportunity to both create and share infringing materials, and this ease has led to international tension concerning
    [Show full text]