case study about copyrights

• Graphic design trends
• Design inspiration
• Design history & movements
• Famous design & designers
• Creative thinking
• Top 9 at 99
• Design basics
• Design tutorials
• Design resources
• Logo & branding
• Web & digital design
• Video & animation
• Packaging & label
• Marketing & advertising
• Book design
• Art & illustration
• Clothing & merchandise
• Other design
• Entrepreneurship
• Freelancing
• Crowdsourcing
• Business resources
• Case studies
• Our community
• Our designers
• Our customers
• Engineering
• Get inspired
• Learn design
• Build a business
• Grow an agency
• Look inside 99d

5 famous copyright infringement cases (and what you can learn)

• Apr 19 2013

Copyright has never been an easy, black-and-white kind of issue. Arguments over copyright between creatives happen all of the time, it’s an inescapable issue.

Read through some of these famous court cases that have created major public discourse over copyright — how it’s handled, what it means, and why we should all care.

1. Rogers vs. Koons _

Photographer Art Rogers shot a photograph of a couple holding a line of puppies in a row and sold it for use in greeting cards and similar products. Internationally, renowned artist Jeff Koons in the process of creating an exhibit on the banality of everyday items, ran across Rogers’ photograph and used it to create a set of statues based on the image.

Koons sold several of these structures, making a significant profit. Upon discovering the copy, Rogers sued Koons for copyright. Koons responded by claiming fair use by parody.

The court found the similarities between the 2 images too close, and that a “typical person” would be able to recognize the copy. Koon’s defense was rejected under the argument that he could have used a more generic source to make the same statement — without copying Rogers’ work. Koons was forced to pay a monetary settlement to Rogers.

Significance

This is one of those famous cases that encompassed a larger issue in the art world, the issue of appropriation art. Can you build upon another’s work to create your own original piece? And if you do so, does that constitute derivative work?

It also brought up the issue of photography as art, was photography just a documentation of the world, or is it a creative and artistic product? Neither of these issues was entirely answered by the case, of course, but it has also become a reference used in many cases afterward.

You can parallel this with vector-tracing a photograph for your design. Are you creating a derivative work that subtracts value from the original artist?

2. The Associated Press vs. Fairey _

Famous street artist Shephard Fairey created the Hope poster during President Obama’s first run for presidential election in 2008. The design rapidly became a symbol for Obama’s campaign, technically independent of the campaign but with its approval.

In January 2009, the photograph on which Fairey allegedly based the design was revealed by the Associated Press as one shot by AP freelancer Mannie Garcia — with the AP demanding compensation for its use in Fairey’s work. Fairey responded with the defense of fair use, claiming his work didn’t reduce the value of the original photograph.

The artist and the AP press came to a private settlement in January 2011, part of which included a split in the profits for the work.

Though there wasn’t a court case and an actual verdict, this case created a lot of discourse around the value of work in these copyright battles. It’s unlikely that Garcia’s work could have ever reached the level of fame it did, if not for Fairey’s poster. Garcia himself stated he was “so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it has had,” but still had a problem with the fact that Fairey took the image without permission and without credit for it’s originator.

Credit, credit, credit! On 99designs you cannot use licensed work — but in the right circumstances you can use stock imagery. When doing so, make sure everyone knows the source.

3. Cariou vs. Prince _

Richard Prince is a well known appropriation artist — one who transforms the work of others to create new meaning in his own work. For an exhibition in the Gagosian Gallery, Prince appropriated 41 images from a photography book by French photographer Patrick Cariou, claiming fair use that he created new meaning out of the photographs. Cariou argued that it wasn’t fair use, but copyright infringement.

A judge ruled in favor for Cariou in 2011, claiming the changes made to Cariou’s photographs weren’t significant enough to constitute a change in meaning — fair use. However, the case is currently in appeal and the final decision has not yet been reached.

The initial ruling in this case in favor of Cariou has created huge divisions in the artistic community. It brings up questions about artistic intent and the subjectivity of art, asking “who was this judge to determine whether or not the appropriated artwork had enough meaning to be considered fair use” when the art could be interpreted differently by each person who viewed it. The jury is still out on this one.

Imitation vs. inspiration

Don’t be a designer who creates work too close to that of another. You have to make sure you are creating something original and not derivative.

Update 4/25/2013

Not two weeks after this article was published, the original decision in this case was overturned and the judge ruled in favor of Prince for the majority of the works in dispute, claiming that Prince’s work transformed the work in the way that it was aesthetically different, and thus acceptable under the argument of fair use.

Read more about the decision as well as the 5 pieces which are still under review by a lower court in The New York Times and Hyperallergic .

4. Modern Dog Design vs. Target Corporation _

Seattle design firm Modern Dog utilized a series of sketches of dogs in their compendium put out by Chronicle Books in 2008. The firm alleges that illustrations from that design have been used in a T-shirt produced by Disney/Target for sale, and filed a lawsuit in 2011.

TBD. There hasn’t been a decision yet in this case but Modern Dog has been campaigning online pretty heavily for publicity and funds to help with its legal fees over the issue.

The Modern Dog case has brought to light a question burning in the mind of many designers and artists — what happens if a major corporation with many more resources than me, utilizes my artwork for profit?

Modern Dog was recently forced to sell their studio to cover the legal costs associated with this battle, so it’s turning into a very extreme situation for them. We’ll have to keep an eye out for how this progressed and continues to change the conversation around this issue.

Always defend your designs. Regardless of who you’re going up against — if you think your design is in the right, then make it known.

5. Vanilla Ice vs. David Bowie/Freddie Mercury _

Vanilla Ice had a hit, in 1991, with Ice Ice Baby — it sampled but did not credit the song Under Pressure by David Bowie and Queen. Though at first denying it, Vanilla Ice later retracted the statement saying it was “a joke”. Facing a lawsuit by the duo, Vanilla Ice ‘fessed to sampling the work.

The case was settled privately out of court with Ice paying an undeclared sum of money and crediting Bowie/Queen on the track.

There’s really not a ton of meaning directly related to design with this one (except for, don’t use other people’s creative work!). But I couldn’t resist adding it. This is one of the most hilarious copyright cases ever.

There are more cases out there! Any you have learned from?

Want design tips & business trends (and the occasional promotion) in your inbox.

Our newsletter is for everyone who loves design! Let us know if you're a freelance designer (or not) so we can share the most relevant content for you.

By completing this form, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Google Terms of Service apply.

Current design contests

Designers, check out these contests so you can start building your career.

• Logo design
• Web page design
• Brand guide
• T-shirt design
• Illustration or graphics
• Browse categories
• How it works
• Find a designer
• Inspiration
• 99designs Pro
• Design contests
• 1-to-1 Projects
• Discover inspiration
• 99designs Studio
• Business card
• Browse all categories
• 1 800 513 1678
• Help Center
• Become a designer

• Who We Are -
• Trademark Services
• Plant Varieties
• Online Protection Services
• Patent Services
• Translation Services
• Industrial Design and Utility Model Services
• IP Services
• SAUDI ARABIA
• UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
• Contact Us -

Corporate Kaijus Clash: 15 Famous Copyright Infringement Cases

What is Copyright Infringement

Infringement of copyright occurs when an individual unlawfully violates the exclusive rights bestowed upon a copyright proprietor, sans their authorization. These exclusive rights entail the freedom to duplicate, circulate, execute, showcase, and engender derivative works from a unique work of authorship.

Ideas are a nebulous concept, and legally protecting something intangible can result in an interesting chain of events, especially when big names and corporations are thrown into the mix. We'll delve into some historic courtroom battles over alleged copyright violations and look at some of the most high-profile cases ever brought by well-known plaintiffs.

Here are the 15 most famous instances of copyright infringement:

1. Whitmill vs Warner Brothers

Despite Hangover 2's success, its publisher, Warner Brothers, was sued by tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill for using Whitmill's uncredited tattoo design without permission in the film and its promotional materials.

Despite Warner Brothers' claims that their use of the design was protected by the "fair use" policy, Whitmill pursued the case and sought a preliminary injunction that would have prevented the film from hitting theaters on schedule.

While the judge did rule against Whitmill's injunction request, he did agree that Whitmill still had a solid case and could pursue the lawsuit on other grounds.

An agreement was reached behind closed doors, and the film was released on schedule, thereby creating comedic history.

2.  Katy Perry vs Marcus Gray

Copyright infringement and the music industry go together like peanut butter and jelly, so it stands to reason that this sector accounts for the lion's share of high-profile cases.

Dark Horse, Katy Perry's 2013 smash single, was one of the year's biggest hits. Earning recognition for achievements like selling over 13 million copies worldwide, attracting billions of Youtube views, having the song performed live during the Super Bowl, and winning MTV's music awards for best female video music in 2014.

In spite of this, Marcus Gray, a rapper, sued Perry the same year, claiming that she had stolen the riff and beat from his song "Joyful Noise''. Legal representation for Katy Perry argued that Gray's statement is preposterous and that he is trying to hold "the basic blocks of music," which could harm all composers.

Damages for Gray's case were estimated at $2.78 million and were awarded to him by the court in 2019. The judge would overturn the initial decision, however, in 2020 after an appeal was submitted, claiming that there was simply insufficient evidence to support the case.

3. The Music Industry vs Napster

A young technical genius named Shawn Fanning developed a piece of software called Napster in 1999 when the internet was still in its infancy. It is a peer-to-peer file-sharing application that allows users to freely share and download music.

Suffice it to say, Napster caught the attention of the music Industry. Metallica's drummer Lars Ulrich filed a lawsuit against the developer of the software in 2000, alleging copyright infringement, unauthorized use of a digital audio interface device, and racketeering.

This is believed to be the first case in which a well-known artist has directly sued a peer-to-peer file-sharing software company. This caused a domino effect in which major record labels like A&M and others began suing Napster. The plaintiffs accused the software company of vicarious copyright infringement and were eventually found guilty in 2002.

To the public's chagrin, Napster was forced to close that year, apologized publicly, and paid up to $26 million in damages.

This incident served as the catalyst for some people's animosity toward Metallica.

Legal protection of something intangible such as an Idea can result in an interesting chain of events.

4. Vanilla Ice vs David Bowie & Queen

As the first hip-hop single to reach number one on the Billboard Hot 100, Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" left an indelible mark on popular culture. However, one of its worst qualities is that it sampled the bass lines from Under Pressure, a hit song by Queen and David Bowie.

Vanilla Ice tried to defend himself from the lawsuit brought against him by Queen and David Bowie for the unauthorized use of their song by claiming that he had added a single note to the end of the riff to make it more unique, but this was deemed insufficient.

The case was eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money, with both Queen and Bowie receiving songwriting credit.

5. Apple vs Microsoft

There was once a time when the two tech giants squared off in court.

Apple filed a lawsuit against Microsoft in 1988, shortly after the release of Windows 2.0 , a significant upgrade to the original version. At the time, Apple accused Microsoft of plagiarizing the graphical user interface found on the Macintosh system without permission or a license.

This is where the case becomes interesting, as Apple did in fact grant Microsoft permission to use Macintosh's design elements in Windows. The mystery surrounding this part is that, for some reason, Apple's legal department did not receive the memo, after the release of Windows 2.0,

Apple was so taken aback by the suddenness of the legal proceedings that it skipped sending any sort of preemptive warning or threat.

As a result of this misunderstanding, the court ruled in favor of Microsoft in 1989, and although Apple attempted to appeal the decision multiple times, all of its efforts were unsuccessful.

6. Gucci vs Guess

In 2009, two of the fashion industry's most recognizable names squared off when Gucci sued Guess, alleging that the latter had violated several of Gucci's trademarks. Gucci had originally asked for $221 million in damages but settled for $4.1 million.

So why did that happen? The judge reasoned that Gucci's claim that it has repeatedly sent cease-and-desist letters to various parties over the years was a fatal flaw in the company's case.

These entities ranged from national corporations to small-time counterfeiters and infringers. With budgetary concerns and the fact that most of their evidence was speculative, Gucci's defense department has been stretched thin.

7. Starbucks vs Obsidian Group

Starbucks sued rival coffee chain Obsidian Group in 2016 for promoting its newest drink, the Freddoccino. Starbucks claimed that the name's similarity violates the copyright of their own popular iced coffee, the Frappuccino.

Despite Obsidian's efforts to assuage concerns by renaming their drink "the Freddo," Starbucks remained steadfast in their pursuit of the case, and the case has yet to be resolved as of mid-late 2022.

8. Art Buchwald vs Paramount Studios

In 1990, writer and comedian Art Buchwald sued Paramount, claiming that the studio stole his ideas from an abandoned project and turned them into the film's screenplay.

According to Paramount's defense, at the time, they paid their authors through the "Hollywood account," which means the screenwriters are paid based on how much profit the film made.

They stood firm in their claim that, despite gross revenue of $288 million dollars, the film produced no net profit, and thus they were not required to pay Buchwald. If this statement struck you as perplexing, the judge felt the same way.

He called Paramount's payment method "blatantly unethical and unconscionable" and ruled in Buchwald's favor, awarding him 900,000 dollars in damages.

9.  Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica

For science fiction fans, 1977 was an interesting year. Twentieth Century Fox sued Universal Studios for infringement the same year that A New Hope was released and defined a generation.

Fox asserted that Battlestar Galactica, a science fiction series produced by Universal, was "too similar" to one of their flagship intellectual properties.

Universal Studio did not take this lightly and filed a lawsuit of its own, claiming that Star Wars stole ideas from older media, such as the 1972 film Silent Running.

Two years later, the case was resolved in favor of Battlestar Galactica. The franchise as a whole was not doing so well at the time, despite the positive publicity surrounding the movie. The original show had been canceled, and fans were flocking to see The Empire Strikes Back.

10. Apple vs Google

In 2010, as smartphones became increasingly important in our daily lives, Apple and Samsung went to court over Samsung's alleged violations of Apple's patents on several of its smartphone designs. Apple's main competitor was not Samsung per se, but rather the Android operating system developed by Google and used by Samsung and other manufacturers.

Partially because of a "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement," Google's legal team had to intervene to help Samsung.

Concurrently, Motorola filed one of the most publicized lawsuits in technology history, accusing Apple of intellectual property infringement. Motorola claimed that Apple violated their patents on 3G phone technology and other aspects of smartphone design, while Apple fired back by claiming that Motorola had infringed on their patents on a number of features.

The court was so frustrated by the fight that the judges threw out the case three times in 2012, on the grounds that neither party had enough implicated evidence and were told to settle out of court. 2012 was the year that Google bought Motorola.

Although Apple has never directly attacked Google, they appear to focus on third-party companies that sell Google's software products; nonetheless, Google appears to be adamant in defending its popular mobile software.

11. Bratz vs Barbie

Carter Bryant, the creator of Bratz, was previously employed by Mattel, the manufacturer of Barbie. During his time working at Barbie, he came up with the idea for Bratz, which he later sold to one of Mattel's biggest competitors, MGA Entertainment.

The new doll franchise debuted in 2001 and quickly became the plastic bombshell's biggest competitor.

Mattel sued both Bryant and MGA in 2008, claiming that Bryant's idea was stolen intellectual property. MGA countersued, resulting in the two doll manufacturers locking horns.

MGA accused Mattel of corporate espionage by having its employees trained in spying on its competitors and resorting to clandestine underhanded tactics, such as having its employees print fake business cards and use them to enter the private showrooms of its competitor.

The lawsuit concluded in 2013 with a verdict in favor of MGA and an award of $170 million in damages, but Mattel would file an appeal to overturn the verdict, causing both parties to walk away empty-handed.

12. Naruto vs Slater

Photographer David Slater left his camera unattended while photographing wildlife in a foreign reserve, leading to a court case involving copyright infringements involving both humans and animals.

A crested macaque named Naruto discovered the camera and started taking the now-famous "Monkey Selfies" that have been making the rounds online. Slater, after discovering the images in his camera, published the image and its context on the website Blurb.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) took notice of the photo after it went viral and sued Slater, Wildlife Personalities Ltd., and Blurb for copyright infringement, arguing that the selfies violated Naruto's authorship rights. In response, Slater filed a motion to dismiss, and the judge quickly sided with Slater, finding that Naruto lacked standing under the Copyright Act.

13. Lana Del Ray vs Radiohead

Lana Del Rey once claimed that Radiohead sued her for allegedly plagiarizing the hit song "Creep" in her 2017 single Get Free. Warner/Chappell, Radiohead's publisher, denied suing Del Ray or taking legal action against her, but admitted requesting that she attribute Creep to "all writers."

In 2018, during a Lollapalooza performance in Brazil, Del Ray appeared to confirm that the alleged lawsuit is over by telling her audience, "Now that my lawsuit is over, I guess I can sing that song whenever I want, right?"

14. John Fogerty vs John Fogerty

In one of the strangest copyright cases ever litigated, a record label once sued an artist for sounding like himself in a song he had written and performed decades earlier. John Fogerty is a musician and songwriter who was a member of the band Creedence Clearwater Revival (CCR). He eventually left the group to pursue a solo career, and his efforts paid off during the 1980s.

However, that all changed when he released a song titled "The Old Man Down the Road," which was later sued by CCR's record label, Fantasy Records, for allegedly plagiarizing CCR's "Run Through the Jungle." That's right; John Fogerty was sued over a tune he composed himself.

The judge sided with Fogerty in the end, saying, "you can't plagiarize yourself," effectively ending any further discussion as to whether or not he plagiarized himself.

After Fogarty's victory, he filed a countersuit against Fantasy Labels to recover the money he had spent on the case. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, where it was ultimately decided in favor of the plaintiff. The judge ruled that the circumstances of the case ran counter to the original intent of the copyright law, which was to safeguard creative endeavors and promote new ideas.

15. Youtube vs Viacom

Viacom sued YouTube for $1 billion in 2007 for "Brazen" copyright infringement for allegedly hosting over 150,000 clips of Viacom's television shows and owned properties on their website.

YouTube argued that it is not legally responsible for content that infringes on third-party copyrights because it is merely an online service provider. This side issue could become the case's deciding factor.

The judge issued an order requiring YouTube to turn over its internal communications logs and transcripts to Viacom for review. If not for one small detail, this evidence would be considered indisputable and Viacom would have won without a doubt. As part of a guerilla marketing campaign, Viacom hired 18 advertising firms to create "unofficial accounts" and upload them as random users before the trial began, an action that can be described as nothing less than a blunder.

Worse yet, Viacom had no idea which accounts belong to them, so they ended up suing the third party to remove content that they had uploaded themselves.

This gave YouTube new life, and they argued that it was unreasonable to remove any account without knowing whether or not it belonged to Viacom.

Since YouTube had no way of telling which accounts were infringing on copyrights, it had no way of stopping them. Viacom's case collapsed due to this minor oversight, and the judge ultimately sided with YouTube, potentially sparing the media conglomerate.

To take full advantage of your brand and to maintain its goodwill, businesses should keep an eye out for counterfeiters and monitor if someone else is engaged in copyright infringement and reaping the benefits from their brand, If you own a business and come across a situation where a 3rd party is infringing on your brand image for their own products, get in touch with us at [email protected] for a complimentary consultation on how we can protect you from such thefts.

Also read our article on Copyright Guide for Freelance Writers to learn how you can avoid infringing copyrighted material.

Click on the link for more information on UAE Copyright Law .

Recent Articles

Procedural Abstraction in Intellectual Property

Complete Guide to Trademark Registration in Bahrain

Copyright Infringement on Social Media: How to Prevent

A Guide to Intellectual Property Litigation

Metaverse Development: Impacts and Implications on Intellectual Proper...

Trademark Registration in Qatar in 2024 - Complete Guide

Amazon Brand Registry in UAE: Complete Guide 2024

A Guide to Intellectual Property Protection in Biotechnology and Genet...

Blockchain Technology and Its Impact on Intellectual Property

Growing Importance of Intellectual Property in the Fashion Industry

Fair Use in Copyright: Guidelines and Examples

A Guide to Intellectual Property Arbitration

Intellectual Property and the Role of Trade Secrets

The Role of Intellectual Property in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Intellectual Property Valuation and Assessment

Beyond Patents and Trademarks: Exploring Lesser-Known Aspects of Intel...

IP Due Diligence - Importance and How to Conduct (Checklist)

Intellectual Property Protection for Artificial Intelligence

10 Landmark Intellectual Property Infringement Disputes

11 Intellectual Property Strategies for Technology Startups in 2024

5 Tips for Guarding your Company Against Intellectual Property Threats

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) Agreement

Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonogr...

Patent Registration in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)

Trademark Infringement and Enforcement in the UAE - Stay Protected

Trademark Renewal and Maintenance in the United Arab Emirates

Impact of UAE's Free Trade Agreements on Trademark Registration

Trademark Licensing and Assignment in the United Arab Emirates

The Madrid Protocol and Its Impact on International Trademark Registra...

Intellectual Property and NFTs and Business in the Metaverse

IP strategy: Grandmaster Moves to Checkmate Competitors

IP Protection for Startups: Fundraising and Investor Relations

World Intellectual Property Day 2023: Celebrating Women's Innovation a...

How the Technological Era Has Changed the Global Intellectual Property...

Belt and Road Initiative: Impact on IP in the MENA Region

Transformation of Intellectual Property in a Post-Pandemic World

Top 10 Intellectual Property Challenges Businesses Face in 2022

Trademark Registration in Saudi Arabia (KSA)

Patent Cooperation Treaty: All You Need To Know

Global Commercialization: Understanding Intellectual Property for Busi...

Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits

World Intellectual Property Day 2022: IP and Youth: Innovating for a B...

All you need to know about Non-fungible Tokens and Copyright Law

Trademark Renewals: How to Renew a Registered Trademark

Paris Convention of 1883 for the Protection of Industrial Property

How To Protect Algorithms That Enhance Businesses

ABOU NAJA Celebrates 50 Years of Intellectual Property Protection

Real and Fake in a 3D Printed World

ABOU NAJA Talks with Filmmaker and Actress Rindala Kodeih

ABOU NAJA Talks Entrepreneurship and Fitness with Maya Nassar

Trademark Registration in UAE - Complete Guide 2024

Notable Product Designers and Designs in the Middle East

Digital Twin and its Legal Implications

Epidemic Sound: How It Affects Copyright and Intellectual Property

Protection of Plant Varieties in the Middle East

Intellectual Property Protection in the Middle East in 2021

ABOU NAJA Talks with Fashion and Street Style Photographer Lina Mo

The Importance of Derivative Works

K-pop band BTS Fuels South Korean IP Economy

IP Trends 2021: How Intellectual Property is Evolving Around Us

ABOU NAJA Talks with Fashion Designer Ahmed Fouad

Patent Registration and Regulations in the United Arab Emirates

World IP Day 2021: Taking your Ideas to Market Legally

ABOU NAJA Talks with Entrepreneur and Filmmaker Hammam Nabtiti

19 Different Ways to Protect Intellectual Property

ABOU NAJA Talks: Leila Al Aouf Talks Journalism, Podcasting, And Prote...

ABOU NAJA Proffers Robust Law Solutions: GoodFirms

ABOU NAJA Talks: Mustafa Sheikh's Career Journey and views on Copyrigh...

ABOU NAJA Talks: Rosemin Madhavji’s Take on the Fashion Industry & I...

Debunking Common Misconceptions About Intellectual Property

Importance of Protecting Intellectual Property in the Digital Age

Music Streaming and Copyright

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works

Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in the United Arab Emirate...

Intellectual Property Lawsuits and Infringements in the GCC

Intellectual Property and the World of Esports

Unfair Competition: How is it related to Trademark Infringement?

Copyright Law in the United Arab Emirates: Explained

Internet of Things: Imminent Industry Patent Wars

Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances

Misuse of Intellectual Property by Large Companies

A Complete Guide on Cybersecurity for Businesses

Protecting Intellectual Property Through Cybersecurity

The Profits in Patents: Gaining Revenues from R&D

Implications of 3D Printing in Intellectual Property

Wunderkind: Business Insights from Young CEOs

Intellectual Property for Satire and Parodies

Ways to Monetize Social Media Influence

History and Evolution of Intellectual Property

A Millennial's Guide to Building a Start-Up Business

Types of Trademarks: All You Need To Know

Ten Most Effective Ways To Fund Your Startup

8 Ways To Fight Counterfeit Sales Online

Digital Transformation: Traditional Business to Online Operations

Role of Intellectual Property in Robotics

Intellectual Property and Social Media: An Introduction

15 Steps to Start a Business that Lasts

Intellectual Property and Marketing: How Compliant Is Your Ad Campaign...

An Intro: Ambitious Inventors Turning Ideas into Patents

IP for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

World Intellectual Property Day 2020

Trade Dress: An Introduction

A Guide to Copyright for Freelance Writers

Sound Mark and Intellectual Property

Managing Intellectual Property Portfolio

UAE Reduces IP Services Fees by 25 Percent

Netflix: A Brilliant IP Junkie

PepsiCo India vs. Farmers: A Tale of David and Goliath

To Patent or Not to Patent

Michael Jordan: Icon, Legend and Innovator

7 Reasons Why Trademarks are Important for Startups

Coronavirus: An Unethical Race to Patent a Vaccine?

21 Famous Copyright Infringement Cases That Will Make You Cringe

In the creative space where innovation intersects with legal boundaries, the clash between copyright law and the First Amendment gets tricky, giving rise to complex challenges and high-profile cases. The balance between protecting intellectual property and allowing free expression tests the limits of these legal frameworks.

Let’s dive into 21 prominent copyright cases that show how this tug-of-war between creativity, inspiration, and protecting original work plays out. Let’s check out these real-life stories where the lines between copyright and free expression get blurry.

• High-profile cases significantly impact how artists approach creativity while respecting intellectual property rights, influencing discussions on sampling, inspiration, and the protection of creative works.
• Cases that are settled out of court, teach us that copyright cases can be unpredictable.
• Creators should take precautions to avoid unintentional similarities by conducting thorough research, obtaining permissions, and seeking legal counsel during the creative process.

21 Famous Copyright Infringement Cases To Learn From

Presented below are big and famous copyright infringement cases across diverse industries, including fashion, music, film, and the digital realm.

1. Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams vs. Marvin Gaye’s Heirs (2013)

Copyright infringement and the music industry frequently coincide, resulting in numerous high-profile cases. One of the most famous cases is that of  Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams vs. Marvin Gaye’s Heirs , centered on their hit song “Blurred Lines,” allegedly infringing Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up.”

Claiming similarities in groove and musical structure, Marvin Gaye’s heirs accused Thicke and Williams of copyright infringement. The defendants initially defended themselves by acknowledging inspiration but argued for the originality of their composition.

However, the 2015 jury verdict favored Marvin Gaye’s heirs, leading to substantial damages and setting a precedent in the music industry. This case heightened awareness of the fine line between inspiration and infringement, emphasizing the protection of even the “feel” of a song under copyright law. 

2. Star Wars vs. Battlestar Galactica (1978)

The dispute arose over alleged similarities between elements of the two iconic science fiction franchises .

Star Wars, created by George Lucas, claimed that Battlestar Galactica, developed by Glen A. Larson, had infringed upon its copyright. The contention centered around shared themes, characters, and narrative structures.

In response to the claims, Larson and the Battlestar Galactica team argued that while both works explored common science fiction tropes, they were distinct in their storytelling and creative expression. The case eventually concluded with a settlement that involved adjustments to certain elements in Battlestar Galactica to mitigate potential copyright concerns.

This case had a lasting impact on how science fiction franchises approach creativity and intellectual property, emphasizing the need for originality even within a genre.

3. Apple vs. Samsung (2011): The Smartphone Design War Escalates

In 2011, Apple accused Samsung of infringing on its design patents, alleging similarities in the look and feel of their respective smartphones. The dispute primarily revolved around the iconic iPhone design. 

Samsung countered by asserting that certain design elements were industry standards and not exclusive to Apple. The case brought attention to issues like user interface design and the protection of design patents. 

Ultimately, in 2012, the jury sided with Apple, awarding damages to be paid by Samsung for patent infringement. This case significantly affected the smartphone industry, setting precedents for design patent litigation and prompting companies to reevaluate and differentiate their product designs.

4. Christian Louboutin vs. Yves Saint Laurent (2011)

Christian Louboutin, known for its distinctive red-bottomed shoes, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Yves Saint Laurent , alleging trademark infringement. The controversy centered on whether Louboutin could exclusively claim the use of a red sole in high-heeled shoes. 

Yves Saint Laurent argued that color should not be subject to trademark protection. The case delved into the complexities of fashion trademarks and the distinctiveness of a single-color mark. 

Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Christian Louboutin, recognizing the red sole as a valid and distinctive trademark, but with the caveat that the protection only applied when the shoe’s upper contrasted in color. This case left a lasting effect on the fashion industry, shaping discussions around color trademarks and the boundaries of intellectual property protection in the world of haute couture. 

5. Queen and David Bowie vs. Vanilla Ice (1990)

In 1990, one of the most notable music copyright cases unfolded involving Queen, David Bowie, and Vanilla Ice , which centered around the hit song “Ice Ice Baby.” The dispute arose from allegations that Vanilla Ice had unlawfully sampled the iconic bassline from Queen and David Bowie’s collaboration, “Under Pressure,” in the creation of his own chart-topping single.

The case highlighted concerns of copyright infringement in music sampling, with Queen and Bowie claiming that Vanilla Ice’s use of the bassline was unauthorized and substantially similar to their original work. In response, Vanilla Ice argued that he had modified the riff sufficiently to avoid infringement.

Ultimately, the case was settled out of court, with Vanilla Ice agreeing to pay an undisclosed sum and provide credit to Queen and David Bowie in subsequent releases of “Ice Ice Baby.” This case emphasized the need for artists to secure proper permissions for sampling and contributing to discussions around the legalities of using elements from existing songs. 

6. Flame vs. Katy Perry (2014)

Flame, whose real name is Marcus Gray, accused Perry of infringing on his 2008 Christian rap song “Joyful Noise.” The lawsuit focused on the alleged similarities in the beats and instrumental elements of the two tracks.

Flame claimed that Perry and her co-creators had copied a distinctive musical phrase from “Joyful Noise.” In response, Katy Perry argued that the elements in question were commonplace in music and not subject to copyright protection.

However, in 2019, the jury sided with Flame, finding Katy Perry and her team liable for copyright infringement. Notably, the landscape shifted when an appeals court overturned the initial ruling, absolving Katy Perry of the $2.8 million payment initially mandated to Marcus Gray.

This case, while initially impacting the music industry and raising awareness about the complexities of musical composition copyright, has undergone a significant transformation with the appeals court’s revised judgment.

7. Harrington vs. Ed Sheeran (2016)

The conflict revolved around Sheeran’s hit song “Photograph” and alleged similarities with the song “Amazing” by Leonard and Harrington. The plaintiff claimed that Sheeran’s song copied the essence of “Amazing,” asserting similarities in melody, harmony, and lyrics.

Ed Sheeran countered by asserting that the elements in question were commonly found in the music industry and did not qualify as copyright infringement. However, in 2017, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to the case’s dismissal.

The resolution underscored the unpredictability of copyright cases and the potential costs involved. This dispute left a notable impact on the music industry, prompting heightened scrutiny over song similarities and encouraging artists to be vigilant in avoiding potential copyright conflicts. 

8. Zindel Estate vs. Guillermo del Toro (2017): The “Shape of Water”

In 2017, a significant case arose involving the film “The Shape of Water,” directed by Guillermo del Toro, and the estate of the late playwright Paul Zindel. The Zindel estate alleged that del Toro’s film bore striking similarities to Zindel’s 1969 play “Let Me Hear You Whisper.”

Both works featured a janitor forming a unique bond with a mysterious aquatic creature. The estate claimed that del Toro had plagiarized key elements, including the plot and characters, leading to accusations of copyright infringement.

Guillermo del Toro denied the allegations, asserting that while he admired Zindel’s work, “The Shape of Water” was an original creation with different themes and messages. The case did not proceed to court, and the parties settled privately in 2018. 

9. Louis Vuitton vs. My Other Bag (2016)

The contention centered on My Other Bag’s tote bags featuring cartoonish imitations of famous luxury brand logos, including a play on Louis Vuitton’s monogram. Louis Vuitton filed a lawsuit, alleging trademark infringement and dilution of its brand.

My Other Bag defended its products as parodies, protected under the First Amendment as a form of expressive speech. They argued that the totes were intended to provide a humorous commentary on the high-end fashion industry and were not likely to cause confusion.

The case reached a resolution in 2016, with the court ruling in favor of My Other Bag, emphasizing the satirical nature of the totes and the minimal likelihood of consumer confusion. This case significantly influenced discussions surrounding trademark law, parody, and the balance between artistic expression and the protection of brand identities. 

10. Art Rogers vs. Jeff Koons (1992)

In 1992, a notable copyright case happened between photographer Art Rogers and contemporary artist Jeff Koons, centering around Koons’ artwork titled “String of Puppies.” The piece featured a series of puppies resembling a porcelain trinket produced by Rogers.

Rogers claimed that Koons had unlawfully copied his photograph and transformed it into a sculpture without permission. The dispute delved into questions of fair use, transformative works, and the boundaries of artistic appropriation.

Jeff Koons defended his creation as a transformative and satirical commentary on kitsch and consumer culture, asserting that it fell under fair use. However, in 1992, the court ruled in favor of Rogers, finding that Koons’ use of the photograph was not transformative enough to be considered fair use. 

11. Metallica vs. Napster (2000)

Metallica filed a lawsuit against Napster, a file-sharing platform, alleging that they facilitated widespread copyright infringement by allowing users to share their music without proper authorization. The case symbolized the clash between traditional music distribution models and the emerging era of digital file-sharing.

Metallica argued that Napster’s practices were harming artists’ livelihoods and the music industry as a whole. Napster, on the other hand, contended that it was a technology platform and not responsible for the actions of its users.

The case ultimately led to legal action against individual users, adding a layer of complexity to the debate over online music sharing. In 2001, Napster filed for bankruptcy, and while the legal battle left a lasting impact on the music industry’s approach to digital distribution, it also accelerated the shift toward legitimate streaming services. 

12. Naruto and PETA vs. Slater (2011)

Naruto and PETA v. Slater , commonly known as “the monkey selfie” case, revolves around a series of legal disputes stemming from a 2011 incident where a macaque monkey named Naruto took a selfie using photographer David Slater’s camera. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Naruto, claiming that the monkey should be recognized as the copyright owner of the selfie and that the rights should be assigned to Naruto.

The case was dismissed by a judge who argued that U.S. copyright law didn’t extend to Naruto since the copyright typically belongs to the individual capturing the image, and Naruto, being a non-human entity, wasn’t eligible. Following PETA’s appeal, a settlement was reached.

In the agreement, David Slater committed to contributing 25% of the photo earnings to organizations dedicated to safeguarding macaques in Indonesia. 

13. Tom Petty vs. Sam Smith (2015)

The case revolved around Smith’s hit song “Stay with Me” and alleged similarities to Tom Petty’s song “I Won’t Back Down.” Critics and listeners noted resemblances in the melodies of the two tracks, leading to accusations of copyright infringement.

The dispute brought attention to the issues surrounding unintentional similarities in musical compositions. Sam Smith acknowledged the resemblance and reached an out-of-court settlement with Tom Petty’s estate, leading to Petty and Jeff Lynne being credited as co-writers of “Stay with Me.”

This case had a significant impression on the music industry, highlighting the importance of acknowledging influences and obtaining proper permissions to avoid copyright disputes. 

14. Ed Sheeran vs. Marvin Gaye Estate (2016)

The controversy centered around Sheeran’s hit song “Thinking Out Loud” and supposed similarities to Marvin Gaye’s classic “Let’s Get It On.” Critics and music enthusiasts pointed out resemblances in the melodic structure and harmonic elements, leading to accusations of copyright infringement.

Ed Sheeran defended his song, claiming that any similarities were coincidental and that he drew inspiration from various sources. The case did not proceed to court, and in 2017, Sheeran reached an undisclosed settlement with the Marvin Gaye estate.

This dispute prompted discussions about the subjective nature of musical similarity and the challenges in defining originality. 

15. Associated Press vs. Shepard Fairey (2009): Obama’s “HOPE” Poster

In 2009, a significant legal battle unfolded between news agency Associated Press (AP) and street artist Shepard Fairey over Fairey’s iconic “HOPE” poster featuring Barack Obama during his presidential campaign. The case centered on Fairey’s unauthorized use of an AP photograph as the basis for the poster, raising questions about artistic attribution and fair use.

Fairey argued that his work was transformative and protected by fair use, emphasizing its social and political commentary. However, as the case progressed, it was revealed that Fairey had submitted false evidence and concealed the true source of the image.

In 2011, Fairey pleaded guilty to criminal contempt of court for fabricating evidence. The legal clash highlighted the complexities of fair use in the realm of political art and the ethical responsibilities of artists in providing accurate information about their sources. 

16. Napster vs. The Music Industry (1999-2001)

Napster, created by Shawn Fanning, allowed users to share and download music files freely, sparking a revolution in digital music distribution. However, this also led to a surge in copyright infringement concerns raised by major record labels and artists.

In 2000, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed a lawsuit against Napster , claiming that the platform facilitated mass copyright violations by enabling users to share copyrighted music without authorization. The case delved into the challenges posed by emerging digital technologies to traditional copyright models.

In 2001, Napster was ordered to cease its file-sharing operations, marking a significant legal victory for the music industry. The case marked a turning point in the music business, fueling debates on the impact of digital sharing on copyright protection, artists’ rights, and the industry’s need to adapt to evolving technological landscapes. 

17. Apple vs. Microsoft (1988-1997)

The legal conflict between tech giants Apple Inc. and Microsoft unfolded over several years, primarily during the late 1980s and into the 1990s. This centered on allegations that Microsoft had copied elements of Apple’s graphical user interface (GUI) for its own operating system, Windows.

Apple filed a lawsuit in 1988, claiming copyright infringement and the “look and feel” similarities between Windows and its Macintosh operating system. The case sparked debates on intellectual property in the software industry and the extent to which GUI elements could be protected under copyright law.

In 1997, the two companies reached a settlement where Microsoft invested in Apple and agreed to continue developing Microsoft Office for Macintosh. The legal clash influenced discussions on software innovation, intellectual property rights, and the competitive dynamics between major players in the tech industry. 

18. “Playas Gon’ Play” Writers vs. Taylor Swift (2017)

In 2017, a legal disagreement emerged between Taylor Swift and the composers of the 2001 3LW song “Playas Gon’ Play,” Sean Hall and Nathan Butler. The controversy revolved around the lyrics of Swift’s hit song “Shake It Off,” with Hall and Butler alleging that Swift had copied phrases from their earlier work .

The lyrics in question were “players gonna play” and “haters gonna hate,” which were present in both songs. Swift argued that these phrases were too commonplace and lacked originality, falling into the public domain. The case raised questions about the threshold for originality in lyrics and the extent to which short phrases could be protected under copyright.

However, in 2018, a judge dismissed the lawsuit, stating that the phrases were too basic to warrant copyright protection. 

19: Lana del Rey vs. Radiohead (2018)

In 2018, Lana Del Rey and the band Radiohead had a copyright infringement dispute that centered around Del Rey’s song “Get Free” and Radiohead’s earlier hit “Creep.” Del Rey acknowledged similarities between the two tracks and stated that Radiohead was seeking legal action for alleged copyright infringement.

The case focused on melodic elements, with Radiohead claiming that “Get Free” shared similarities with the chord progression of “Creep.” Lana Del Rey asserted that any resemblances were unintentional and offered to credit Radiohead in her album.

In the end, the dispute was reportedly settled out of court , with Lana Del Rey confirming that she was allowed to keep “Get Free” on her album without further financial obligations to Radiohead. This case prompted discussions on the complexities of music copyright, unintentional similarities, and the potential for out-of-court resolutions in the music industry. 

20. Art Buchwald vs. Paramount (1988)

In 1988, a legal battle developed between humorist Art Buchwald and Paramount Pictures over the film “Coming to America,” starring Eddie Murphy. The argument revolved around Buchwald’s claim that the film’s script was based on an idea he had pitched to Paramount.

Buchwald filed a lawsuit, alleging a breach of contract and seeking a share of the profits from the successful movie. Paramount argued that the film was an original work and that any similarities were coincidental.

The case went to trial, and in 1990, the court ruled in favor of Buchwald, determining that Paramount had, indeed, breached the agreement. The ruling highlighted the importance of honoring contractual obligations and fairly compensating creators for their contributions.

The case settled for an undisclosed sum, emphasizing the need for Hollywood studios to respect the intellectual property rights of writers and creators.

21. Viacom vs. YouTube (2007-2010)

Viacom filed a lawsuit against YouTube, claiming that the platform allowed users to upload and share copyrighted Viacom content without authorization. The case raised questions about the responsibilities of online platforms in checking copyright infringement and the application of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

YouTube argued that it was protected by the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions, which shield online service providers from liability for user-uploaded content if they promptly remove infringing material upon notification. In 2010, the court ruled in favor of YouTube, emphasizing the platform’s compliance with the DMCA and that YouTube had no way of constantly pre-screening user-generated content.

The case set legal precedents for the responsibilities of online platforms in addressing copyright infringement issues, and the judge ultimately sided with YouTube, contributing to discussions on the balance between protecting intellectual property and encouraging online innovation.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can you handle the fine line between inspiration and copyright infringement in your creative work.

Be mindful of the source of inspiration and strive to create original content that goes beyond mere replication. Understand the principles of fair use and seek legal advice if unsure about potential infringement.

What impact have high-profile copyright cases had on how artists approach creativity?

High-profile cases have raised awareness about the need to secure permissions from the copyright holder for sampling, inspired careful consideration of influences, and emphasized the importance of respecting intellectual property rights while encouraging creativity.

Can you provide examples of successful defenses against copyright infringement claims in the creative industries?

Defenses often involve showcasing the originality of the accused work, proving that similarities are coincidental, or highlighting elements protected by fair use. Successful defenses require a thorough understanding of copyright law.

What are the implications for creators regarding digital copyright infringement and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)?

Creators should be vigilant about protecting their work online, understand DMCA provisions, and promptly address any unauthorized use. Online platforms play a significant role in both exposure and potential infringement, making proactive protection essential.

What precautions can you take to protect your work against copyright infringement, especially in the age of digital sharing?

Utilize watermarking, licensing agreements, and digital rights management tools to monitor and protect your creative content online. Regularly monitor platforms for unauthorized use and be prepared to take legal action if needed.

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Copyrights Supreme Court Cases

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that Congress can “promote the progress of…useful art” by granting authors exclusive rights to their “writings.” This clause forms the foundation of U.S. copyright law, although the scope of copyrighted subject matter now extends well beyond “writings.” To be copyrightable, a creative work generally must have at least some originality and must be fixed in a tangible medium of expression. The holder of a copyright possesses a bundle of rights. These include the rights to reproduce, distribute, and publicly perform or display the work, as well as the right to create “derivative works” based on the original copyrighted work.

To sue someone else for infringing their copyright, the author must have registered their work with the U.S. Copyright Office. Perhaps the most common defense to infringement is the fair use defense, which generally requires a court to consider four factors:

• The purpose and character of the use
• The nature of the copyrighted work
• The amount and significance of the copied portion
• The market effect on the copyrighted work

As technology has evolved, copyright infringement of audio and visual works has become rampant despite the risk of harsh penalties. In response, the Supreme Court and other courts have developed theories of secondary copyright infringement, such as contributory infringement. These allow a copyright owner to more effectively enforce their rights.

Below is a selection of Supreme Court cases involving copyrights, arranged from newest to oldest.

Author: Elena Kagan

A copyright owner possessing a timely claim for infringement is entitled to damages, no matter when the infringement occurred.

Author: Sonia Sotomayor

If an original work and secondary use share the same or highly similar purposes, and the secondary use is commercial, the first fair use factor is likely to weigh against fair use, absent some other justification for copying.

Author: John Roberts

Copyright protection does not extend to the annotations in the official annotated code of a state.

Author: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

A copyright claimant may commence an infringement lawsuit only when the Copyright Office registers a copyright. Upon registration of the copyright, the copyright owner can recover damages for infringement both before and after registration.

Author: Clarence Thomas

A feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection only if the feature can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and it would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work (on its own or fixed in another tangible medium of expression) if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated.

Author: Stephen Breyer

A streaming service infringed the public performance right by selling its subscribers a technologically complex service that allowed them to watch television programs over the Internet at about the same time as the programs were broadcast over the air.

The first sale doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad.

Author: David Souter

An entity that distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses.

The Seventh Amendment provides a right to a jury trial on all issues pertinent to an award of statutory damages in a copyright infringement case, including the amount.

Author: John Paul Stevens

The first sale doctrine endorsed in Section 109(a) of the Copyright Act is applicable to imported copies. (The first sale doctrine generally provides that the owner of a copy of a work may sell or dispose of the copy without getting permission from the copyright owner.)

The cognizable harm under the fourth factor of the fair use test is market substitution, rather than harm from criticism. A parody is unlikely to act as a substitute for the original work, since the two works usually serve different market functions.

Author: William Rehnquist

Prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants in copyright infringement cases must be treated similarly regarding attorney fees, which may be awarded to prevailing parties only as a matter of the court's discretion.

Author: Sandra Day O’Connor

The originality requirement necessitates independent creation plus a modicum of creativity. Although a compilation of facts may possess the requisite originality because the author typically chooses which facts to include, in which order to place them, and how to arrange the data so that readers may use them effectively, copyright protection extends only to those components of the work that are original to the author.

Assignees of the right to produce a derivative work or some other portion of the renewal rights hold nothing but an unfulfilled and unenforceable expectancy if the author dies before the renewal period, unless the assignees secure a transfer of the renewal rights from the author's statutory successor.

Author: Thurgood Marshall

A creator was an independent contractor when he engaged in a skilled occupation, supplied his own tools, worked in a separate workplace, was retained for a short period of time, had absolute freedom to decide when and how long to work, and had total discretion in hiring and paying assistants, among other factors. (This case concerned whether a creative work was a work for hire.)

Generally, the author's right to control the first public appearance of their un-disseminated expression will outweigh a claim of fair use.

Congress did not intend to draw a distinction between authorizations to prepare derivative works that are based on a single direct grant and those that are based on successive grants.

The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or is merely capable of substantial non-infringing uses.

Author: Potter Stewart

The reception of a radio broadcast of a copyrighted musical composition is not copyright infringement when the copyright owner has licensed the broadcaster to perform the composition publicly for profit.

Author: Warren Burger

The Constitution does not expressly or by inference vest all power to grant copyright protection exclusively in the federal government.

Author: Stanley Reed

Artistic articles are protected in form, but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects.

Author: Mahlon Pitney

One who gathers news at pains and expense, for the purpose of lucrative publication, may be said to have a quasi-property in the results of their enterprise as against a rival in the same business, and the appropriation of those results at the expense and to the damage of one and for the profit of the other is unfair competition, against which equity will afford relief.

Author: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The performance of a copyrighted musical composition in a restaurant or hotel without charge for admission to hear it but as an incident of other entertainment for which the public pays infringes the public performance right.

Author: William Rufus Day

The sole right to vend granted by federal copyright law does not secure to the owner of the copyright the right to qualify future sales by their vendee or to limit or restrict such future sales at a specified price.

Author: Henry Billings Brown

When there is no evidence that the publishers were the assignees or acted as the agents of the author for the purpose of taking out copyright, the copyright entry of a magazine will not validate the copyright entry subsequently made under a different title by the author of a portion of the contents of the magazine.

The least pretentious picture has more originality in it than directories, which may be copyrighted.

Author: Samuel Freeman Miller

Congress can confer copyright protection for photographs that are representations of original intellectual conceptions.

Author: Joseph Bradley

A claim to the exclusive property in a peculiar system of bookkeeping cannot be maintained by the author of a treatise in which that system is exhibited and explained.

Author: John McLean

No reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by the Supreme Court, and the Justices cannot confer on any reporter any such right.

• Communications and Internet Law
• Entertainment Law
• Intellectual Property
• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

UCI IP, Arts & Tech Clinic

Intellectual Property, Arts, & Technology Clinic

A Deep Dive into the Last Two Years in Fair Use

February 26, 2021 by IPAT Clinic Staff

Update: On March 15, Copyright Lately published an interview with Professor Jack Lerner about the report. Read the interview here .

Update #2: We have posted all cases reviewed in our report on fair use cases from 2019-2021! You can find the links to the cases in our table summarizing the abstracts . (April 16, 2021)

We are excited to celebrate Fair Use Week with a new IPAT Clinic report: Fair Use Jurisprudence 2019-2021: A Comprehensive Review .

• Download the report
• View an online table of cases discussed in the report

Copyright covers a huge range of expressive activity and is automatic. Just about anyone who wants to do more than read, watch, or use a work relies on the doctrine of fair use in order to avoid liability for copyright infringement. The Supreme Court has referred to fair use as a sort of safety valve that provides breathing space allow copyright to coexist with freedom of expression. And it is an evolving doctrine; disputes concerning fair use are constantly working their way through the American legal system, but the vast majority of cases don’t make the news despite their importance to creative expression and innovation.

At the UCI Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic, we work with independent filmmakers to make sure that when they do need to make fair use, they can do so responsibly, appropriately, and safely. Over the past couple of years, our Filmmaker Counseling team began to hear of a rising number of fair use opinions coming out of the federal courts, and we decided to embark on an exhaustive study of recent fair use decisions in copyright infringement cases. In total, we identified and analyzed seventy-two opinions issued by federal courts and made available on Westlaw or Lexis between January 1, 2019, and February 25, 2021. In our report, we provide abstracts of 72 opinions along with some commentary on selected cases. We have also prepared a table of these cases, which is available at https://ipat.law.uci.edu/recent-fair-use-cases/ .

We were surprised by the sheer volume of fair use opinions, but our analysis yielded a few interesting insights.

First, there are a lot of fair use cases involving photographs. Of the 72 opinions made available on Lexis or Westlaw, over half were about photographs—37 in total. Of these, 22 were from either repeat plaintiffs David Oppenheimer (2) and Larry Philpot (1) or from plaintiffs’ attorneys Richard Leibowitz (16) and Higbee and Associates (3) who file a high volume of cases. (The question of whether these repeat filers are a problem is for another report; we note, however, that three separate judges in this set of opinions made reference to misconduct by Mr. Liebowitz. In any event, it is quite clear that the judicial opinions referenced in this report represent a tiny fraction of the photography cases being filed annually in recent years.)

What do these cases mean for the doctrine of fair use? The results are mixed. Some suits never should have been brought because the fair use was so clear—while in other cases, the defendant perhaps should have thought twice before asserting a fair use defense. Also, social media can complicate the analysis; the judges in the Southern District of New York are having an interesting conversation across cases about what it means to embed an Instagram post (presumably licensed via Instagram’s API terms of use) versus just displaying the picture used in the post.

Second, there were very few cases dealing with technology. Aside from a case involving a long-running dispute between Oracle and Rimini, Rimini St. v. Oracle Int’l Corp. , 473 F. Supp. 3d 1158 (D. Nev. 2020), and a case involving Zillow, there were almost no reported fair use cases dealing with technology issues—the last two years have not seen a Sega v Genesis or an Author’s Guild v. Google . Of course, we are awaiting the Supreme Court decision in Google v. Oracle , but the last twenty-six months have been surprisingly quiet.

We hope you find this report useful and interesting; it is freely available to use and share under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

We will be posting additional analysis to this space in the coming weeks. Stay tuned!

Jack Lerner Director, UCI Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic

Luke Hartman UCI Law J.D. Candidate, 2021

Jordin Wilcher UCI Law J.D. Candidate, 2021

Cross-posted with Fair Use Week at https://www.fairuseweek.org/fair-use-jurisprudence-2019-2021/

Published By Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center

Summaries of fair use cases.

The best way to understand the flexible principle of fair use is to review actual cases decided by the courts. Below are summaries of a variety of fair use cases.

Ignore Heading – Content

Cases involving text.

• Fair use. Publisher Larry Flynt made disparaging statements about the Reverend Jerry Falwell on one page of Hustler magazine. Rev. Falwell made several hundred thousand copies of the page and distributed them as part of a fund-raising effort. Important factors: Rev. Falwell’s copying did not diminish the sales of the magazine (since it was already off the market) and would not adversely affect the marketability of back issues. (Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc., 606 F.Supp. 1526 (C.D. Cal., 1985).)
• Fair use. A biographer of Richard Wright quoted from six unpublished letters and ten unpublished journal entries by Wright. Important factors: No more than 1% of Wright’s unpublished letters were copied and the purpose was informational. (Wright v. Warner Books, Inc., 953 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1991).)
• Fair use (mostly). In a case alleging 75 instances of infringement in an educational setting, a district court, proposing a fair use standard based on less than 10% of a book, determined that 70 instances were not infringing. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the 10% standard and emphasized the importance of a flexible case-by-case fair use analysis. The case was remanded to the district court which, in 2016, found the majority of instances to be fair use. Important factors: On remand, the second factor (the scholarly nature of the work) and the fourth factor (impact of the use on the market value) weighed in favor of fair use. Cambridge University Press v. Patton, 769 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. Ga. 2014).
• Fair use. A district court ruled that libraries that provided a search engine company (Google) with books to scan were protected by fair use when the libraries later used the resulting digital scans for three purposes: preservation, a full-text search engine, and electronic access for disabled patrons who could not read the print versions. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed fair use as to the full-text database (“a quintessentially transformative use”) and as to use of text in formats accessible to print-disabled people (although not a transformative use, it is still considered a fair use based on the Betamax decision), but remanded the issue of fair use for long-term preservation of books. Important factors: As to the full-text database and disabled-access, the Court of Appeals did not find any evidence of financial harm. The Author’s Guild v. Hathitrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014).
• Fair use. A news organization (Bloomberg) tapped into an earnings report phone call made by executives of a foreign corporation (Swatch) to 132 analysts, and posted a recording and transcript of the phone call. Important factors: Bloomberg’s publication of the call was analogous to news reporting (publication of such calls is mandatory for American corporations). Because of that newsworthy purpose, a transformative use was not required. Further, the posting of the entire recording was necessary to fulfill this newsworthy purpose. The Second Circuit stated, “Bloomberg’s overriding purpose here was not to “scoop” Swatch or “supplant the copyright holder’s commercially valuable right of first publication,” but rather simply to deliver newsworthy financial information to American investors and analysts.” Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P. 742 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2014).
• Fair use. The black comedy, Hand to God, features the famed Abbott and Costello routine “Who’s on First?” The routine is spoken by a repressed character, whose hand puppet persona mocks him for pretending to be the author of the routine. Important factors: Though the use of the routine in the movie and play both elicit laughs, the play’s usage is transformative because the audience must be aware of the original in order to “get the joke.” TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum, No. 15 Civ. 4325 (S.D. N.Y. Dec. 17, 2105).
• Not a fair use. The Nation magazine published excerpts from ex-President Gerald Ford’s unpublished memoirs. The publication in The Nation was made several weeks prior to the date Mr. Ford’s book was to be serialized in another magazine. Important factors: The Nation’s copying seriously damaged the marketability of Mr. Ford’s serialization rights. ( Harper & Row v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985).)
• Not a fair use. A biographer paraphrased large portions of unpublished letters written by the famed author J.D. Salinger. Although people could read these letters at a university library, Salinger had never authorized their reproduction. In other words, the first time that the general public would see these letters was in their paraphrased form in the biography. Salinger successfully sued to prevent publication. Important factors: The letters were unpublished and were the “backbone” of the biography—so much so that without the letters the resulting biography was unsuccessful. In other words, the letters may have been taken more as a means of capitalizing on the interest in Salinger than in providing a critical study of the author. ( Salinger v. Random House, 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1987).)
• Not a fair use. An author copied more than half of an unpublished manuscript to prove that someone was involved in the overthrow of the Iranian government. Important factors: A substantial portion was taken (half of the work) and the work had not been published yet. ( Love v. Kwitny , 772 F.Supp. 1367 (S.D. N.Y., 1989).)
• Not a fair use. A company published a book entitled Welcome to Twin Peaks: A Complete Guide to Who’s Who and What’s What , containing direct quotations and paraphrases from the television show Twin Peaks, as well as detailed descriptions of plots, characters, and setting. Important factors: The amount of the material taken was substantial and the publication adversely affected the potential market for authorized books about the program. ( Twin Peaks v. Publications Int’l, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993).)
• Not a fair use. A company published a book of trivia questions about the events and characters of the Seinfeld television series. The book included questions based upon events and characters in 84 Seinfeld episodes and used actual dialog from the show in 41 of the book’s questions. Important factors: As in the Twin Peaks case, the book affected the owner’s right to make derivative Seinfeld works such as trivia books. ( Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publ. Group , 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998).)
• Not a fair use. In a case involving the author J.D. Salinger, an author wrote a book in which a character known as Mr. C was allegedly modeled after the character of Holden Caulfield, from Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye . After Salinger sued, the sequel’s author claimed that his work was a parody, an argument rejected by the district court. The court determined that fair use would not succeed as a defense and granted Salinger’s request for a preliminary injunction. (The Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the fair use analysis but reversed the case regarding the standard used for the preliminary injunction.) Important factors: Aging the character and placing him in the present day does not add something new, particularly since the character’s personality remains intact as derived from the original work. ( Salinger v. Colting , 641 F.Supp.2d 250 (S.D. N.Y. 2009).)
• Not a fair use. Although the creation of a Harry Potter encyclopedia was determined to be “slightly transformative” (because it made the Harry Potter terms and lexicons available in one volume), this transformative quality was not enough to justify a fair use defense. Important factors: An important factor in the court’s decision was the extensive verbatim use of text from the Harry Potter books. ( Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. v. RDR Books , 575 F.Supp.2d 513 (S.D. N.Y. 2008).)

Artwork, Visual Arts, and Audiovisual Cases

• Fair use. In a lawsuit commonly known as the Betamax case, the Supreme Court determined that the home videotaping of a television broadcast was a fair use. This was one of the few occasions when copying a complete work (for example, a complete episode of the Kojak television show) was accepted as a fair use. Evidence indicated that most viewers were “time-shifting” (taping in order to watch later) and not “library building” (collecting the videos in order to build a video library). Important factors: The Supreme Court reasoned that the “delayed” system of viewing did not deprive the copyright owners of revenue. ( Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).)
• Fair use. The makers of a movie biography of Muhammad Ali used 41 seconds from a boxing match film in their biography. Important factors: A small portion of film was taken and the purpose was informational. ( Monster Communications, Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting Sys. Inc. , 935 F.Supp. 490 (S.D. N.Y., 1996).)
• Fair use. A search engine’s practice of creating small reproductions (“thumbnails”) of images and placing them on its own website (known as “inlining”) did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Important factors: The thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to help the public access the images by indexing them. ( Kelly v. Arriba-Soft , 336 F.3d. 811 (9th Cir. 2003).)
• Fair use. It was a fair use, not an infringement, to reproduce Grateful Dead concert posters within a book. Important factors: The Second Circuit focused on the fact that the posters were reduced to thumbnail size and reproduced within the context of a timeline. ( Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. , 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006).)
• Fair use. A Google search engine did not infringe a subscription-only website (featuring nude models) by reproducing thumbnails. Important factors: The court of appeals aligned this case with Kelly v. Arriba-Soft (above), which also permitted thumbnails under fair use principles. ( Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007).)
• Fair use. A publisher of monster magazines from the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s sued the creator and publisher of a book, Famous Monster Movie Art of Basil Gogos . (Gogos created covers for the magazines.) The book publisher had obtained licenses from the artist directly, but not from the magazine publisher who claimed copyright under work-made-for-hire principles. The district court determined that the use was transformative. Important factors: The use was for a biography/retrospective of the artist, not simply a series of covers of magazines devoted to movie monsters. In addition, the magazines were no longer in print, and the covers amounted to only one page of the magazine, not the “heart” of the magazine. ( Warren Publishing Co. v. Spurlock d/b/a Vanguard Productions , 645 F.Supp.2d 402, (E.D. Pa., 2009).)
• Fair use. A seven-second clip from the Ed Sullivan TV show was used in a staged musical history (The Jersey Boys) based on the career of the musical group, the Four Seasons. Important factors: The use was transformative. (“Being selected by Ed Sullivan to perform on his show was evidence of the band’s enduring prominence in American music,” the judge wrote in the ruling. “By using it as a biographical anchor, [the defendant] put the clip to its own transformative ends.”) Further, the use caused no financial harm to the copyright owners of the show. SOFA Entertainment, Inc. v. Dodger Productions, Inc. , No. 2:08-cv-02616 (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2013).
• Fair use. The painter, Richard Prince, created a collage using—in one collage—35 images from a photographer’s book. The artist also used 28 of the photos in 29 additional paintings. In some instances the full photograph was used while in others, only the main subject of the photo was used. Important factors: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that to qualify as a transformative use, Prince’s work did not have to comment on the original photographer’s work (or on popular culture). The Court of Appeals concluded that 25 of Prince’s artworks qualified as fair use and remanded the case to determine the status of the remaining five artworks. Cariou v. Prince , U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, No. 11-1197.
• Fair use. The re-creation of three scenes from the film Deep Throat was a fair use when made for a biographical film about actress Linda Lovelace. Important factors: The re-created scenes were used in a non-pornographic film biography (with no nudity) about an actress who ultimately railed against pornography. This use illustrated a strong transformative purpose and demonstrated that the copyright owner of Deep Throat would be unlikely to lose revenue from this non-pornographic use. Arrow Productions, LTD v. The Weinstein Company LLC , 2014 WL 4211350 (S.D. N.Y. Aug. 25, 2014).
• Fair Use. A modified photo of a Wisconsin mayor was reproduced on a Tshirt and used to raise money for an event opposed by the mayor. Important factors: The Seventh Circuit was primarily persuaded by the level of alteration—the photo was posterized, background removed, text added, and a lime green outline featuring the mayor’s smile remained. The resulting image of the mayor, the court stated, “can’t be copyrighted.” Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC , 766 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2014).
• Fair use. A TV clipping database made it possible for users to search news broadcasts using keywords, then view a portion of the curated news clip containing those keywords. The court determined that the storage, indexing, excerpting, and reproduction of the clips was a fair use. Important factors: The district court emphasized the purpose of the database, which was unique and transformative. The court also dismissed the “very small possible impact” of lost revenues. Fox News v. TVEYES, Inc. , 43 F. Supp. 3d 379 (S.D. N.Y. 2014).
• Fair use. A disgruntled former commercial tenant (Chevaldina) used an unflattering photo of her former landlord (Katz) in 25 critical blog posts. Katz purchased the copyright in the photo and sued Chevaldina for infringement. Important factors: The use was considered noncommercial, and transformative because, “in the context of the blog post’s surrounding commentary, Chevaldina used Katz’s purportedly ‘ugly’ and ‘compromising’ appearance to ridicule and satirize his character.” Katz v. Chevaldina , No. 14-14525 (11th Cir. 2015).
• Fair use. In a battle over the use of viral videos, a humor program, Equals Three , reproduced viral videos from another source, Jukin Video, and commented on them, often reproducing the clips in their entirety. Important factors: The court determined that in the case of 18 of the 19 videos, Equals Three used no more than necessary of each video for purposes of its commentary; and that the jokes and commentary added something new to the viral videos. Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc. , 14-09041 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015).
• Fair use. An author created a parody of the surfer-thriller Point Break. The court found the work to be sufficiently transformative to justify fair use of the underlying movie materials. At issue in this case was the more novel question of whether the resulting parody could itself be protected under copyright. Important factors: The Second Circuit held that if the author of the unauthorized work provides sufficient original material and is otherwise qualified under fair use rules, the resulting work will be protected under copyright. Keeling v. Hars , No. 13-694 (2d Cir. 2015).
• Not a fair use. A television news program copied one minute and 15 seconds from a 72-minute Charlie Chaplin film and used it in a news report about Chaplin’s death. Important factors: The court felt that the portions taken were substantial and part of the “heart” of the film. ( Roy Export Co. Estab. of Vaduz v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. , 672 F.2d 1095, 1100 (2d Cir. 1982).)
• Not a fair use. A television station’s news broadcast used 30 seconds from a four-minute copyrighted videotape of the 1992 Los Angeles beating of Reginald Denny. Important factors: The use was commercial, took the heart of the work, and affected the copyright owner’s ability to market the video. ( Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9 , 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997).)
• Not a fair use. A poster of a “church quilt” was used in the background of a television series for 27 seconds. Important factors: The court was influenced by the prominence of the poster, its thematic importance for the set decoration of a church, and the fact that it was a conventional practice to license such works for use in television programs. ( Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc. , 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997).)
• Not a fair use. The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) licensed the use of a photo­graph of the Korean War veterans’ memorial sculpture for a postage stamp, but failed to obtain permission from the sculptor who held copyright in the underlying three-dimensional work. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the use of the underlying sculpture depicted in the photograph was not permitted under fair use principles. Important factors: It was not enough to transfer the work from three dimensions to two dimensions (despite the creative use of photography and snow in conjunction with the photos). ( Gaylord v. United States , 595 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010).)

Internet Cases

• Fair use. The Washington Post used three brief quotations from Church of Scientology texts posted on the Internet. Important factors: Only a small portion of the work was excerpted and the purpose was for news commentary. ( Religious Technology Center v. Pagliarina , 908 F.Supp. 1353 (E.D. Va., 1995).)
• Fair use. Displaying a cached website in search engine results is a fair use and not an infringement. A “cache” refers to the temporary storage of an archival copy—often a copy of an image of part or all of a website. With cached technology it is possible to search Web pages that the website owner has permanently removed from display. An attorney/author sued Google when the company’s cached search results provided end users with copies of copyrighted works. The court held that Google did not infringe. Important factors: Google was considered passive in the activity—users chose whether to view the cached link. In addition, Google had an implied license to cache Web pages since owners of websites have the ability to turn on or turn off the caching of their sites using tags and code. In this case, the attorney/author knew of this ability and failed to turn off caching, making his claim against Google appear to be manufactured. ( Field v. Google Inc. , 412 F.Supp.2d 1106 (D. Nev., 2006).)
• Fair use. A real estate blog copied the first eight sentences from a news­paper article. Important factors. The blogger had copied only eight sentences and had not copied the “valuable” section (the commentary included with the article), and the court did not believe that the copying would affect the market for the article (the third and fourth fair use factors). Righthaven LLC v. Realty One Group, Inc. , No. 2:10-cv-LRH-PAL, 2010 WL 4115413 (D. Nev., October 19, 2010).
• Fair use. A nonprofit organization posted a newspaper article about police discrimination on its website. The newspaper assigned its right in the article to a third party, Righthaven, which filed the lawsuit. Important factors. The court’s reasoning was influenced by the fact that Righthaven had acquired the copyright and was not in the newspaper business (it appeared to be in the “litigation business”). For that reason, the court reasoned that the nonprofit’s use was transformative because its purpose was to educate the public about immigration issues, whereas Righthaven had no such purpose for the article (because it was not in the news business). And also, because Righthaven was not in the news business, it could show no harm from the defendant’s dissemination of the article. Righthaven LLC v. JAMA , No. 2:2010-cv-01322, 2011 WL 1541613 (D. Nev., April 22, 2011).
• Fair use. A user of an online political forum posted a five-sentence excerpt from a newspaper article with a link back to the newspaper’s website. Important factors: The use was quantitatively small and did not cause the newspaper financial harm. In addition, the online political forum was permitted to use the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground , No. 2:10-cv-01356-RLH (GWF).
• Fair use. Google made digital copies of millions of books submitted to it by libraries, scanned them and made them available to search through its Google Books service, so that users could—for free—identify relevant words, terms, or snippets from the scanned text. Google also allowed participating libraries to retain the copies they submitted. Important factors: Google’s digitization was deemed a transformative use because it provided limited information about the books without allowing users more complete access to the works. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. , No. 13-4829 (2d Cir. 2015).

Ignore Heading – Sub table content

• Not a fair use. Several individuals without church permission posted entire publications of the Church of Scientology on the Internet. Important factors: Fair use is intended to permit the borrowing of portions of a work, not complete works. ( Religious Technology Center v. Lerma , 40 U.S.P.Q.2d 1569 (E.D. Va., 1996).)

Music Cases

• Fair use. A person running for political office used 15 seconds of his opponent’s campaign song in a political ad. Important factors: A small portion of the song was used and the use was for purposes of political debate. ( Keep Thomson Governor Comm. v. Citizens for Gallen Comm. , 457 F.Supp. 957 (D. N.H., 1978).)
• Fair use. A television film crew, covering an Italian festival in Manhattan, recorded a band playing a portion of a copyrighted song “Dove sta Zaza.” The music was replayed during a news broadcast. Important factors: Only a portion of the song was used, it was incidental to the news event, and it did not result in any actual damage to the composer or to the market for the work. ( Italian Book Corp., v. American Broadcasting Co. , 458 F.Supp. 65 (S.D. N.Y., 1978).)
• Not a fair use. Downloading songs is not a fair use. A woman was sued for copyright infringement for downloading 30 songs using peer-to-peer file sharing software. She argued that her activity was a fair use because she was downloading the songs to determine if she wanted to later buy them. Important factors: Since numerous sites, such as iTunes, permit listeners to sample and examine portions of songs without downloading, the court rejected this “sampling” defense. ( BMG Music v. Gonzalez , 430 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2005).)
• Not a fair use. A defendant in a music file sharing case could not claim a fair use defense since he had failed to provide evidence that his copying of music files involved any transformative use (an essential element in proving fair use). Important factors: The court held that the defendant was confusing “‘fairness’ and ‘fair use’—in the end, fair use is not a referendum on fairness in the abstract …” ( Capitol Records Inc. v. Alaujan , 2009 WL 5873136 (D. Mass., 7/27/09).)

Parody Cases

• Fair use. Comedians on the late-night television show Saturday Night Live parodied the song “I Love New York” using the words “I Love Sodom.” Only the words “I Love” and four musical notes were taken from the original work. Important factors: The Saturday Night Live version of the jingle did not compete with or detract from the original song. ( Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co. , 482 F.Supp. 741 (S.D. N.Y.), aff’d 632 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1980).)
• Fair use. The composers of the song “When Sunny Gets Blue” claimed that their song was infringed by “When Sonny Sniffs Glue,” a 29-second parody that altered the original lyric line and borrowed six bars of the song. A court determined this parody was excused as a fair use. Important factors: Only 29 seconds of music were borrowed (not the complete song). ( Fisher v. Dees , 794 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1986).) (Note: As a general rule, parodying more than a few lines of a song lyric is unlikely to be excused as a fair use. Performers such as Weird Al Yankovic, who earn a living by humorously modifying hit songs, seek permission of the songwriters before recording their parodies.)
• Fair use. The rap group 2 Live Crew borrowed the opening musical tag and the words (but not the melody) from the first line of the song “Pretty Woman” (“Oh, pretty woman, walking down the street”). The rest of the lyrics and the music were different. Important factors: The group’s use was transformative and borrowed only a small portion of the original song. The 2 Live Crew version was essentially a different piece of music; the only similarity was a brief musical opening part and the opening line. (Note: The rap group had initially sought to pay for the right to use portions of the song but were rebuffed by the publisher, who did not want “Pretty Woman” used in a rap song.) ( Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music , 510 U.S. 569 (1994).)
• Fair use. A movie company used a photo of a naked pregnant woman onto which it superimposed the head of actor Leslie Nielsen. The photo was a parody using similar lighting and body positioning of a famous photograph taken by Annie Leibovitz of the actress Demi Moore for the cover of Vanity Fair magazine. Important factors: The movie company’s use was transformative because it imitated the photographer’s style for comic effect or ridicule. ( Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. , 137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1998).)
• Fair use. A pro-life video organization created two antiabortion videos by borrowing video clips from a pro-choice video and juxtaposing them with actual abortion footage. Important factors: The court characterized the pro-life videos as parodies despite the fact they did not meet the classic definition of a parody—something that humorously mimics or ridicules another’s work. In a unique holding, the court held that a parody need not be humorous, but may merely comment on, or criticize the original. Northland Family Planning Clinic v. Center for Bio-Ethical Reform , No. SACV 11-731 JVS (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2012).
• Not a fair use. An artist created a cover for a New Yorker magazine that presented a humorous view of geography through the eyes of a New York City resident. A movie company later advertised their film Moscow on the Hudson using a similar piece of artwork with similar elements. The artist sued and a court ruled that the movie company’s poster was not a fair use. Important factors: Why is this case different from the previous case involving the Leslie Nielsen/Annie Leibovitz parody? In the Leibovitz case, the use was a true parody, characterized by a juxtaposition of imagery that actually commented on or criticized the original. The Moscow on the Hudson movie poster did not create a parody; it simply borrowed the New Yorker’s parody (the typical New York City resident’s geographical viewpoint that New York City is the center of the world). ( Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. , 663 F.Supp. 706 (S.D. N.Y., 1987).)
• Not a fair use. An author mimicked the style of a Dr. Seuss book while retelling the facts of the O.J. Simpson murder trial in The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the book was a satire, not a parody, because the book did not poke fun at or ridicule Dr. Seuss. Instead, it merely used the Dr. Seuss characters and style to tell the story of the murder. Important factors: The author’s work was nontransformative and commercial. ( Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. , 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997).)

Comments are closed.

• --> Login or Sign Up

• Problem Solving Workshop

Lotus v. Borland: A Case Study in Software Copyright

Ben Sobel, under the supervision of Jonathan Zittrain

Share This Article

• Custom Field #1
• Custom Field #2
• Similar Products

Product Description

In 1996, the Supreme Court heard a landmark case on software copyright. Lotus Development Corporation had sued Borland International, Inc. for copying the names and hierarchical structure of the menu commands in Lotus’s blockbuster spreadsheet program, 1-2-3, and offering them in Borland’s competing Quattro Pro software. However, the Supreme Court did not make binding precedent in Lotus v. Borland . One justice’s recusal left the remaining justices in a 4-4 tie, and so the Court let stand, without opinion, the First Circuit’s judgment that the names and hierarchical structure of the menu commands in Lotus 1-2-3 were uncopyrightable.

Nearly twenty years later, similar questions of software copyright remain unresolved. A high-profile case involving copyright in computer programs, Oracle v. Google , was denied review by the Supreme Court in late June of 2015. Google’s petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court maintained that Oracle v. Google “directly implicates the unanswered question in Lotus ...” and its outcome will exert “enormous” influence over innovation in the computer business. Lotus v. Borland is an essential piece of context in the contemporary debate over digital intellectual property—a debate that has persisted for decades without definitive resolution by the Supreme Court. Studying the case can offer a practical immersion in legal doctrine, litigation procedure and tactics, policymaking, and business strategy.

This case study contextualizes Lotus v. Borland in order to analyze the issues of jurisprudence, policy, commerce, and legal practice that the case implicated. Students study internal government documents—made public during Justice Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings—that give insight into the rarely seen debates that shape the government’s official position on pending litigation. By providing important legal and historical context, this case study challenges students to examine Lotus v. Borland ’s influence on the contemporary software ecosystem.

This case study is based on the syllabus and pedagogy of “Anatomy of a Copyright Case,” a course taught at HLS in Spring 2015 by Henry Gutman, who argued Lotus’s side before the Supreme Court.

Learning Objectives

• Discuss software copyright from legal, commercial, and policy perspectives.
• Understand legal and business strategies in copyright litigation.
• Practice argumentation and brief-writing in a variety of legal, governmental, and commercial roles.

Subjects Covered

 Copyright, Legislation and Regulation, Intellectual Property, Legal Writing

Accessibility

To obtain accessible versions of our products for use by those with disabilities, please contact the HLS Case Studies Program at [email protected] or +1-617-496-1316.

Educator Materials

Registered members of this website can download this product at no cost.  Please  create an account  or  sign in  to gain access to these materials. 

Note: It can take up to three business days after you create an account to verify educator access. Verification will be confirmed via email. 

For more information about the Problem Solving Workshop, or to request a teaching note for this case study, contact the Case Studies Program at [email protected] or +1-617-496-1316.

Please note that each purchase of this product entitles the purchaser to one download and use. If you need multiple copies, please purchase the number of copies you need. For more information, see  Copying Your Case Study .

Product Videos

Custom field, product reviews, write a review.

Find Similar Products by Category

Recommended.

Algorithmic Allegories (version 1.0)

Marcus Comiter, Ben Sobel, and Jonathan Zittrain

From Sony to SOPA: The Technology-Content Divide

John Palfrey, Jonathan Zittrain, Kendra Albert, and Lisa Brem

Game Changers: Mobile Gaming Apps and Data Privacy

Susan Crawford, Jonathan Zittrain and Lisa Brem

The Smart Grid

Sonia McNeil, with Paul Kominers, J. Palfrey and J. Zittrain

• Related Products

Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes

From Barbie to cereal to a tattoo, a copyright lawsuit can get contentious; some have even reached the Supreme Court

Megan Gambino

Senior Editor

1. S. Victor Whitmill v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. In the recent movie The Hangover Part II , Stu Price, a strait-laced dentist played by actor Ed Helms, wakes up after a night of debauchery in Bangkok to find a tribal tattoo wrapped around his left eye, his skin still painfully pink. Price’s tattoo is identical to the one Mike Tyson has, and it alludes to the boxer’s cameo in the original 2009 movie The Hangover .

Tyson’s tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. Entertainment on April 28, just weeks before the movie’s May 26 opening. Since he obtained a copyright for the eight-year-old “artwork on 3-D” on April 19, he claimed that the use of his design in the movie and in advertisements without his consent was copyright infringement. Warner Bros., of course, saw it as a parody falling under “fair use.”

On May 24, 2011 Chief Judge Catherine D. Perry of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied an injunction on the movie’s release, but said Whitmill still had a case. If it meant avoiding a long trial, Warner Bros. said, in early June, that it would be willing to “digitally alter the film to substitute a different tattoo on Ed Helms’s face” when the movie is released on home video. But that ending was avoided on June 17, when Warner Bros. and Whitmill hashed out an agreement of undisclosed terms.

2. Isaac Newton v. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz By the early 18th century, many credited the German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz with inventing the study of calculus. Leibniz had, after all, been the first to publish papers on the topic in 1684 and 1686. But when Englishman Isaac Newton published a book called Opticks in 1704, in which he asserted himself as the father of calculus, a debate arose. Each of the thinkers’ respective countries wanted to stake a claim in what was one of the biggest advances in mathematics.

Newton claimed to have thought up the “science of fluxions,” as he called it, first. He apparently wrote about the branch of mathematics in 1665 and 1666, but only shared his work with a few colleagues. As the battle between the two intellectuals heated up, Newton accused Leibniz of plagiarizing one of these early circulating drafts. But Leibniz died in 1716 before anything was settled. Today, however, historians accept that Newton and Leibniz were co-inventors, having come to the idea independently of each other.

3. Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. In 1893, a man named Henry Perky began making a pillow-shaped cereal he called Shredded Whole Wheat. John Harvey Kellogg said that eating the cereal was like “eating a whisk broom,” and critics at the World Fair in Chicago in 1893 called it “shredded doormat.” But the product surprisingly took off. After Perky died in 1908 and his two patents, on the biscuits and the machinery that made them, expired in 1912, the Kellogg Company, then whistling a different tune, began selling a similar cereal. In 1930, the National Biscuit Company, a successor of Perky’s company, filed a lawsuit against the Kellogg Company, arguing that the new shredded wheat was a trademark violation and unfair competition. Kellogg, in turn, viewed the suit as an attempt on National Biscuit Company’s part to monopolize the shredded wheat market. In 1938, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the Kellogg Company on the grounds that the term “shredded wheat” was not trademarkable, and its pillow shape was functional and therefore able to be copied after the patent had expired.

4. Marcantonio Raimondi v. Albrecht Dürer Artist Albrecht Dürer discovered in the early 1500s that a fellow engraver by the name of Marcantonio Raimondi was copying one of his most famous works, a woodcut series of engravings called the Life of the Virgin . To make his prints, Raimondi carved detailed replicas of Dürer’s wood blocks. The prints, with Dürer’s “A” above “D” signature, could pass as Dürer originals, and Raimondi made considerable profits off of them. Dürer took issue and brought his case to the court of Venice. Ultimately, the court ruled that Raimondi could continue making copies, as long as he omitted the monogram.

5. Mattel Inc. v. MGA Entertainment Inc. Barbie was 42 years old when the exotic, puffy-lipped Bratz dolls Cloe, Jade, Sasha and Yasmin strolled onto the scene in 2001. Tensions escalated as the Bratz seized about 40 percent of Barbie’s turf in just five years. The Bratz struck first. In April 2005, their maker MGA Entertainment filed a lawsuit against toy powerhouse Mattel, claiming that the line of “My Scene” Barbies copied the big-headed and slim-bodied physique of Bratz dolls. Mattel then swatted back, accusing Bratz designer Carter Bryant for having designed the doll while on Mattel’s payroll. Bryant worked for Mattel from September 1995 to April 1998 and then again from January 1999 to October 2000, under a contract that stipulated that his designs were the property of Mattel.

In July 2008, a jury ruled in favor of Mattel, forcing MGA to pay Mattel $100 million and to remove Bratz dolls from shelves (an injunction that lasted about a year). But the two toy companies continued to duke it out. This April, in yet another court case, underdog MGA prevailed, proving that Mattel was actually the one to steal trade secrets.

6. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

“Weird Al” Yankovic has a policy of writing a parody of a song only if he gets permission from the artist. In the late 1980s, the rap group 2 Live Crew attempted to play by the same rules. Luther Campbell, one of the group members, changed the refrain of Roy Orbison’s hit “Oh, Pretty Woman” from “pretty woman” to “big hairy woman,” “baldheaded woman” and “two-timin’ woman.” 2 Live Crew’s manager sent the bawdy lyrics and a recording of the song to Acuff-Rose Music Inc., which owned the rights to Orbison’s music, and noted that the group would credit the original song and pay a fee for the ability to riff off of it. Acuff-Rose objected, but 2 Live Crew included the parody, titled “Pretty Woman,” on its 1989 album “As Clean as They Wanna Be” anyway.

Acuff-Rose Music Inc. cried copyright infringement. The case went to the Supreme Court, which, in so many words, said, lighten up. “Parody, or in any event its comment, necessarily springs from recognizable allusion to its object through distorted imitation,” wrote Justice David Souter. “Its art lies in the tension between a known original and its parodic twin.”

7. Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh v. The Random House Group Limited Authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh surfaced in 2004 with claims that Dan Brown had cribbed the “central theme” and “architecture” of their 1982 book  The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail . Though Baigent and Leigh’s book was nonfiction and Brown’s  The Da Vinci Code  was fiction, they both boldly interpret the Holy Grail as being not a chalice but the bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, who they alleged had a child together.

Baigent and Leigh accused Random House—ironically, their own publisher, as well as Brown’s—for copyright infringement. A London court ruled, in 2006, that historical research (or “historical conjecture,” as was the case with  The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail ) is fair game for novelists to explore in fiction. “It would be quite wrong if fictional writers were to have their writings pored over in the way  The Da Vinci Code  has been pored over in this case by authors of pretend historical books to make an allegation of infringement of copyright,” wrote Justice Peter Smith in his decision.

8. Lucasfilm Ltd. v. High Frontier and Lucasfilm v. Committee for a Strong, Peaceful America When politicians, journalists and scientists, in the mid-1980s, nicknamed the Reagan administration’s Strategic Defensive Initiative (SDI), the “star wars” program, George Lucas’s production company was miffed. It did not want the public’s positive associations with the term to be marred by the controversial plan to place anti-missile weapons in space.

In 1985, Lucasfilm Ltd. filed a lawsuit against High Frontier and the Committee for a Strong, Peaceful America—two public interest groups that referred to SDI as “star wars” in television messages and literature. Though Lucasfilm Ltd. had a trademark for Star Wars, the federal district court ruled in favor of the interest groups and their legal right to the phrasing so long as they didn’t attach it to a product or service for sale. “Since Jonathan Swift’s time, creators of fictional worlds have seen their vocabulary for fantasy appropriated to describe reality,” read the court decision.

9. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster Inc. In 1999, to the dismay of musicians around the world looking to sell albums, Shawn Fanning, an 18-year-old whiz kid studying computer science at Northeastern University, created Napster, a peer-to-peer music sharing service that allowed users to download MP3s for free. A&M Records, part of Universal Music Group, a heavy hitter in the music industry, as well as several other record companies affiliated with the Recording Industry Association of America slapped Napster with a lawsuit. The plaintiffs accused Napster of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. The case went from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where Napster was found guilty on both counts. In 2002, Napster was shut down. Grokster, another music-sharing site, surged on for a few more years, but it too stopped operating when the Supreme Court ruled against it in MGM v. Grokster in 2005.

10. Adidas America Inc. v. Payless Shoesource Inc. In 1994, Adidas and Payless got into a scuffle over stripes. Adidas had used its three-stripe mark as a logo of sorts since 1952, and had recently registered it as a trademark. But Payless was selling confusingly similar athletic shoes with two and four parallel stripes. The two companies hashed out a settlement, but by 2001, Payless was again selling the look-alikes. Fearing that the sneakers would dupe buyers and tarnish its name, Adidas America Inc. demanded a jury trial. The trial lasted seven years, during which 268 pairs of Payless shoes were reviewed. In the end, Adidas was awarded $305 million—$100 million for each stripe, as the  Wall Street Journal ’s Law Blog calculated.

Get the latest History stories in your inbox?

Click to visit our Privacy Statement .

Megan Gambino | | READ MORE

Megan Gambino is a senior web editor for Smithsonian magazine.

31 Notable Copyright Infringement Cases

Key takeaways.

• Copyright infringement is using a creative work without the owner’s consent. This can include copying, distributing, or adapting the work in any way.
• Fair use is a legal defense that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission.
• Numerous high-profile copyright infringement cases exist.
• Understanding copyright law is crucial for creators and consumers. It helps protect creativity while allowing fair use for commentary, criticism, and education.

Copyright infringement cases have been a persistent and prominent fixture in the public discourse for several decades.

As technological innovations advance at an unprecedented pace, the intricate issue of intellectual property rights assumes an increasingly convoluted form, thereby presenting a formidable challenge in safeguarding creative works.

In this article, we shall undertake a comprehensive exploration of the multifaceted concept of copyright infringement, delving into noteworthy instances of such violations, assessing their repercussions across diverse domains of society, and offering strategies for effectively avoiding infringement.

What is Copyright Infringement?

Copyright infringement is an unlawful act whereby an individual uses a creative work without obtaining the proprietor’s consent.

This transgression violates the proprietor’s exclusive rights to govern the utilisation of their intellectual property and to benefit monetarily from it.

To illustrate, consider downloading and appropriating someone’s photograph from the internet and integrating it into your website without the owner’s authorisation; this constitutes copyright infringement.

One should be cognisant that copyright infringement is not limited to misappropriating another’s work and claiming it as one’s own. It also involves exploiting it in a manner that the owner has not sanctioned.

Therefore, it is imperative to obtain the copyright owner’s consent before utilising their creative work.

If one is uncertain whether or not the use of such a work is permitted, it is advisable to proceed with caution and abstain from using it entirely.

20 International Copyright Infringement Cases

Star wars vs battlestar galactica.

Back in 1977, science fiction fans had a lot to talk about.

This was the year that witnessed the launch of two blockbuster franchises, namely Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica, both of which promptly rose to eminence.

However, things became rather convoluted when Twentieth Century Fox mounted a lawsuit against Universal Studios, the producers of Battlestar Galactica, alleging copyright infringement.

Fox contended that Battlestar Galactica bore too close a resemblance to Star Wars and that their intellectual property was being duplicated.

Not one to take it lying down, Universal Studios filed its lawsuit against Fox. They claimed that Star Wars had stolen ideas from older media, like the 1972 film Silent Running.

After a two-year litigation process, the legal case concerning Battlestar Galactica was resolved in its favor.

However, the franchise as a whole wasn’t doing so well at the time. The original show had been canceled, and fans were more interested in the next Star Wars movie, The Empire Strikes Back.

Naruto vs Slater

Have you heard about the case involving Naruto the Macaque and photographer David Slater? It’s a pretty interesting story that affects both humans and animals.

One day, Slater was out taking photos of wildlife in a foreign reserve and left his camera unattended for a moment.

A crested macaque named Naruto stumbled upon a camera and began taking selfies, which gained widespread popularity on the internet.

Slater was excited about the photos and published them on the website Blurb, which caught the attention of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

PETA argued that the monkey selfies violated Naruto’s authorship rights and filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Slater, Wildlife Personalities Ltd., and Blurb.

However, Slater didn’t back down and filed a motion to dismiss the case. The judge ultimately sided with Slater, finding that Naruto lacked standing under the Copyright Act.

It’s a fascinating case that shows just how complex copyright law can be, especially when it involves animals.

While Naruto may have taken the photos, the law ultimately determined that he didn’t have the legal standing to claim copyright ownership of them.

Suggested Reading: Who can claim copyright ?

Starbucks vs Obsidian Group

In 2016, Starbucks filed a lawsuit against a competing coffee chain called Obsidian Group.

Starbucks claimed that Obsidian’s new drink, called the “Freddoccino,” was too similar to their own popular iced coffee, the “Frappuccino,” and that this violated Starbucks’ copyright.

Obsidian Group tried to resolve the issue by changing the name of their drink to “the Freddo,” but Starbucks was still not satisfied and continued with the lawsuit. As of mid-late 2022, the case has not yet been resolved.

Apple vs Microsoft

When Windows 2.0 , a significant update to its original version, was released in 1988, Apple sued Microsoft shortly afterward.

Apple had charged Microsoft for stealing the graphical user interface (GUI) of their Macintosh OS without their permission or a license to do so. This is why this occurred.

However, it was later revealed that Apple had permitted Microsoft to use some design elements of the Macintosh GUI in Windows.

Unfortunately, Apple’s legal department was unaware of this agreement and proceeded with the lawsuit.

In 1989, the court sided with Microsoft, and despite Apple’s best efforts, the company was unable to overturn the ruling on appeal.

Further Reading: Apple vs Microsoft copyright case study

Gucci vs Guess

Gucci and Guess, two of the most well-known brands in the fashion business, got into a legal dispute in 2009 when Gucci claimed that Guess had infringed on several of its trademarks.

Gucci first sought $221 million in damages but only agreed to pay $4.1 million.

What caused that, then? According to the judge, Guci’s argument that it frequently sent cease-and-desist letters to different parties over the years had a fatal defect.

These organisations included large multinational enterprises as well as insignificant copycats and infringers.

Gucci’s defense team has been overworked due to economic constraints and the fact that the majority of their evidence was conjectural.

The Case of Dolls: Bratz vs Barbie

Carter Bryant worked for Mattel, the maker of Barbie dolls, and during his time there, he came up with the idea for Bratz dolls. He later sold the idea to MGA Entertainment, which launched the Bratz line of dolls in 2001.

Mattel sued both Bryant and MGA in 2008, claiming that Bryant’s idea for Bratz was developed while he was still employed by Mattel and, therefore, Mattel owned the intellectual property rights to the dolls.

MGA said that Mattel had used sneaky and unfair methods to try to stop Bratz from being successful, like spying on them and pretending to be their employees (via fake id cards) to get into their private showrooms.

The trial went on for several years, with MGA eventually winning and being awarded $170 million in damages. However, Mattel appealed the decision, and in the end, neither company received any compensation.

Robin Thicke & Pharrell Williams v. Marvin Gaye

Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were sued by the estate of Marvin Gaye, who claimed that Thicke and Williams had stolen the “General vibe” and some percussive elements from Gaye’s song “Got to Give It Up” for their song “Blurred Lines”.

The court agreed with Gaye’s estate and ruled in their favor. Thicke and Williams had to pay $5.3 million in damages and agreed to pay a 50% royalty fee. This was one of the largest payouts in music copyright history .

Art Buchwald vs. Paramount: The Battle over Stolen Ideas and Unethical Payment Practices

In 1990, writer and comedian Art Buchwald filed a lawsuit against Paramount, alleging that they had taken ideas from one of his abandoned projects and used them for a movie.

Paramount argued that they paid their authors based on the film’s profit and that since the movie made no net profit despite grossing $288 million, they were not obligated to pay Buchwald.

The judge determined that the defendant’s payment method was unethical. The court ruled in favor of Buchwald, granting him $900,000 in damages.

Whitmill vs Warner Brothers

Despite the success of Hangover 2, its producer, Warner Brothers, faced a lawsuit from tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill.

Whitmill accused them of using his unique tattoo design without permission in the movie and promotional materials.

Warner Brothers argued that their use of the design was protected by “fair use,” but Whitmill continued with the case.

He even sought a preliminary injunction to stop the movie from being released on time.

Although the judge rejected Whitmill’s injunction request, he acknowledged that Whitmill had a strong case and could proceed with the legal actions on other grounds.

In the end, an agreement was made privately, allowing the film to be released as planned and securing its place in comedy history.

Suggested Reading: Tattoo copyright infringement

Katy Perry vs Marcus Gray

Copyright infringement and the music industry often go hand in hand, leading to numerous high-profile cases.

One such case involves Katy Perry’s 2013 hit single “Dark Horse,” which achieved massive success, selling over 13 million copies worldwide, garnering billions of YouTube views, and winning prestigious awards.

However, in 2014, rapper Marcus Gray sued Katy, alleging that she had stolen the riff and beat from his song “Joyful Noise.”

Perry’s legal team argued that Gray’s claim was absurd and that he was attempting to claim ownership of fundamental musical elements, which could negatively impact all composers.

In 2019, the court awarded Gray damages of $2.78 million. However, in 2020, the verdict was overturned on appeal due to a lack of evidence to support the claim.

The Smartphone Patent Wars: Apple vs Samsung and Motorola

In 2010, Apple and Samsung were in a legal dispute over Samsung’s alleged infringement of Apple’s smartphone design patents.

The Android OS, created by Google and adopted by Samsung and other manufacturers, was Apple’s key rival rather than Samsung itself.

Due to an agreement between Samsung and Google, Google’s legal team also had to get involved in the case.

At the same time, Motorola filed a lawsuit against Apple, accusing it of infringing on its patents related to 3G technology and smartphone design. Apple responded by saying that Motorola had infringed on its patents too.

The case became so complicated that the court dismissed it three times in 2012 because neither side had enough clear evidence. The court suggested that they settle out of court instead. In the same year, Google purchased Motorola.

Although Apple has never directly attacked Google, it appears to be targeting third-party companies that use Google’s software products. However, Google seems determined to defend its popular mobile software.

Viacom vs. YouTube

Back in 2007, Viacom, a media company, sued YouTube, a website where people can share videos, for $1 billion.

Viacom said that YouTube lets people upload more than 150,000 videos of their TV shows and other copyrighted stuff without asking for permission.

Viacom accused YouTube of “brazen” copyright infringement.

Since they are only an online service provider, YouTube claimed that they are not legally liable for content that violates the rights of third parties.

The case hinged on whether YouTube was responsible for the content on its site or not.

The judge overseeing the case ordered YouTube to hand over their internal communications logs and transcripts to Viacom for review to see if they knew about the copyrighted content.

However, Viacom made a significant mistake. As part of a guerilla marketing campaign, Viacom hired 18 advertising firms to create “unofficial accounts” and upload content as random users before the trial began.

They did not keep track of which accounts were theirs.

This blunder hurt Viacom’s case. They ended up suing third-party accounts that they had uploaded themselves, without realising it.

YouTube argued that they could not remove accounts without knowing if they were owned by Viacom, and it was unreasonable to do so.

As YouTube had no way of identifying which accounts were violating copyrights, they were powerless to do anything about it.

As a result, the judge ultimately sided with YouTube, ruling that they were not responsible for the copyrighted content on their site. This decision potentially spared YouTube from paying $1 billion to Viacom.

The Associated Press vs. Fairey

The “Hope” poster was designed by Shepard Fairey in 2008 during President Obama’s first presidential campaign. Fairey is a well-known street artist.

This poster quickly became a recognisable symbol of the campaign.

Although Fairey’s design was not officially endorsed by the campaign, it had its approval.

In January 2009, the Associated Press revealed that the photograph used as a reference for Fairey’s poster was taken by AP freelancer Mannie Garcia.

The AP demanded compensation for the use of the photo in Fairey’s work. Fairey claimed that his use of the photo fell under fair use and didn’t decrease the value of the original photo.

In January 2011, the artist and the AP reached a private settlement that entailed dividing the profits from the artwork.

Relatable article: Artist copyright infringement cases

Mathew vs. Walt Disney

Mathew, the person suing, claimed that Disney stole the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise from him.

Disney defended itself by showing old theme park art that came before Mathew’s work, proving they had independently created the unique supernatural elements in the franchise.

These elements involve pirates turning into living skeletons under moonlight due to a terrible curse.

Disney successfully demonstrated that it possessed the initial copyright for Pirates of the Caribbean in the legal proceedings.

This was not the first time someone sued Disney over the franchise.

After dropping his second lawsuit, Mathew signed an agreement promising not to bring any more copyright claims against Disney. However, he still filed the current lawsuit.

This situation suggests that the agreement wasn’t taken seriously by the artist and raises concerns about how Disney deals with artists, potentially impacting future collaborations.

Vanilla Ice vs. Queen and David Bowie: The Case of Unauthorised Sampling in “Ice Ice Baby

Unauthorised use of a portion of the bass lines from Queen and David Bowie’s “Under Pressure” was made in Vanilla Ice’s popular song “Ice Ice Baby.”

Queen and Bowie sued Vanilla Ice for copyright infringement, claiming that he used their song without permission.

Vanilla Ice argued that he had changed the bass lines a bit to make them unique, but this defense was not enough.

The case was settled out of court with an undisclosed amount of money paid to Queen and Bowie, and they were given songwriting credit for “Ice Ice Baby.”

Fogerty Wins Self-Plagiarism Lawsuit

This case revolves around John Fogerty. He was a musician and songwriter who used to be part of the band Creedence Clearwater Revival (CCR).

After leaving the band to pursue a solo career, Fogerty wrote and performed a song called “The Old Man Down the Road,” which was later sued by CCR’s record label, Fantasy Records, for allegedly plagiarising CCR’s “Run Through the Jungle.”

In the end, the judge ruled in favor of Fogerty, saying that he couldn’t plagiarise himself. Fogerty then filed a countersuit to recover the money he had spent on the case, which went all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled in Fogerty’s favor, saying that the case went against the original intent of copyright law, which is to protect creativity and encourage new ideas.

Suggested Reading: Basic copyright law

The Rise and Fall of Napster: A Landmark Case in Music Copyright Infringement

In 1999, a young computer whiz named Shawn Fanning created software called Napster.

With Napster, people could easily share and download music files on the internet.

The music industry didn’t like this because people were sharing their music without permission.

In 2000, a famous drummer from Metallica, named Lars Ulrich, sued Napster for doing something called “copyright infringement.”

This was the first time a big artist sued a company that helped people share music, and it caused other big record labels (like A&M) to also sue Napster.

The plaintiffs accused Napster of vicarious copyright infringement , and in 2002, the company was found guilty. As a result, Napster had to shut down, apologise publicly, and pay up to $26 million in damages.

This incident caused many music fans to resent Metallica for their role in Napster’s demise, while others saw it as a turning point in the music industry’s relationship with digital technology.

Rogers vs. Koons

A photograph depicting a couple holding a series of puppies was captured by Art Rogers. He subsequently sold, for commercial purposes, cards and similar merchandise.

Artist Jeff Koons saw the picture while creating an exhibit on ordinary objects and used it to create statues, which he sold for a lot of money.

Rogers sued Koons for copyright infringement, and Koons claimed that it was a parody and therefore fair use.

The court decided that the two images were too similar and that most people could see that it was a copy.

Koons’ defense was deemed invalid as he had the option to utilise an alternative source for his statement instead of replicating Rogers’ work.

Koons had to pay a settlement to Rogers.

Disney vs. Emerson Elementary

In 2020, a PTA event was held at Berkeley’s Emerson Elementary School. At this event, the latest version of The Lion King was screened.

However, Disney’s licensing organisation, which represents the company’s copyrighted content, sent a notice to the school.

The notice stated that it was a copyright infringement and that the school had to pay a penalty of $250 for publicly screening the movie without a license.

This incident gained attention when the school started a crowdfunding campaign to collect such a huge amount.

After the incident, the Chief Executive Officer of Disney sent out a tweet apologising for the penalty. He also contributed to the crowdsourcing campaign.

This situation was problematic for Disney because their characters are mainly intended for children, and all their works are targeted towards them.

When an elementary school screens its movies for children who can’t afford to watch them in theaters, and Disney hits them with a notice, it creates bad publicity for the company.

This could damage their reputation, especially among their target audience. It made Disney look bad because they make movies for children, but then they made a school pay for showing one of their movies to children.

Suggested Reading: Disney copyright infringement

Modern Dog Design vs. Target Corporation

This is the case of Modern Dog Designs, whose graphic design was unlawfully appropriated by Target and Disney.

Designers should encourage free and open competition and respect copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property, according to the American Institute of Graphic Arts (AIGA).

Both businesses are being sued by Modern Dog for copyright violations and plagiarism .

The moral conundrum, where the stealing of the design is judged unethical, is analysed using the virtue theory.

The discussion of the stakeholders impacted by the violation of ethical design use includes the Modern Dog employees, the unfavorable press that Target received, and the effect on Target’s stock price.

All twenty-six dog graphics included in Modern Dog were given extensive copyright protection as a result of the lawsuit’s verdict.

The case establishes a precedent for small design firms to defend their rights and moral principles if any business, no matter how big or little, tries to steal their work.

3 Cases Of Copyright Violation in India

Rg anand v delux films & ors.

In a court case called RG Anand v Delux Films & Ors, the person who made a play called ‘Hum Hindustani’ said that the people who made the movie ‘New Delhi’ copied his play.

He said that they were both about the same idea of “provincialism”. But the court said that copyright only protects how the idea is expressed, not the idea itself .

The court also said that if two things look very similar to an average person, then it might be considered an infringement. However, in this case, the court decided that the play and the movie did not look similar at all.

Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors., High Court of Delhi

The case of Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors. was heard in the High Court of Delhi and involved a request for an interim injunction against the release of films related to Sushant Singh Rajput (SSR).

The plaintiff, SSR’s father, argued that films such as ‘NYAY The Justice,’ ‘Suicide or Murder,’ and ‘Shashank’ violated publicity and privacy rights, the right to a fair trial, and Article 21 of the Constitution .

However, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to make a valid case for violation of celebrity or publicity rights, as the films had appropriate disclaimers and did not use SSR’s image or name.

The Court also noted that celebrity rights may not continue after the celebrity’s death and that the use of public record facts may not result in liability for the defendants.

In addition, the Court stated that a case of defamation is only speculative without access to defamatory content.

Furthermore, the Court found that freedom of expression prevails over Article 21 for public record information and denied the injunction while requesting the defendants to provide an account of any damages that may be compensated.

Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. vs. www.sportsala.tv And Ors., High Court of Delhi

This case involves a suit filed by Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. against various defendants, seeking a permanent injunction against the unauthorised reproduction, distribution, broadcasting, and other similar activities related to the cricket matches between India’s tours of England and Sri Lanka.

During the course of the proceedings, Sony Pictures also requested an interim injunction with similar reliefs.

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sony Pictures, which prohibited certain websites, their redirects, mirrors, and alpha-numeric versions from reproducing, broadcasting, making available, communicating to the public, or distributing the cricket matches.

The Court also issued a dynamic injunction against rogue websites that may engage in such activities.

To prevent copyright infringement, the Court directed ISPs to block the mentioned and other rogue websites and requested that the Government of India to provide appropriate directions.

The interim injunction also covered MSOs and cable operators, and local commissioners were appointed to monitor and take action against any violations of the Court’s orders.

The Court’s orders primarily aimed to protect the copyrights held by Sony Pictures while still permitting non-infringing and fair uses of the content related to the cricket matches between India and England/Sri Lanka.

3 Literary Copyright Infringement Cases

Gopal das vs. jagannath prasad & anr.

Gopal Das and Jagannath Prasad & Anr went to court because they had both written books on the same topic, but Gopal Das claimed that Jagannath Prasad had copied his work since Jagannath’s book was published three years after Gopal Das’s.

Jagannath argued that they had both used the same sources and only the idea was the same, which cannot be protected by copyright .

However, the court found that not only was the idea copied, but also the way it was expressed in the book, including the layout and sequence of the text.

Therefore, the court upheld the decision that Jagannath had infringed on Gopal Das’s copyright and ordered him to pay damages.

E.M. Forster & Ors. vs. A.N. Parasuram – Madras High Court

In this case, an appeal was filed against a trial court’s judgment that determined no copyright infringement had occurred.

The plaintiff, an author, had written a book that was subsequently chosen as a textbook for matriculation exams.

The defendant then published a guidebook aimed at simplifying the content of the textbook for students.

Consequently, the plaintiff sued the defendant for copyright infringement, alleging that the defendant had copied portions of the plaintiff’s book.

The decision of the Court

The court carefully examined both books and discovered that although the defendant had utilised some sections of the plaintiff’s work, they had also added numerous new elements.

These new elements included the defendant’s interpretations and explanations of the original text, which significantly differentiated the guidebook from the plaintiff’s book.

The court ruled that the defendant’s work was a product of their independent creative thought.

The court emphasised that copyright protection should not be employed as a means to stifle the creation of new literary works.

As a result, the trial court’s decision was upheld, and the defendant’s guidebook was not found to infringe on the plaintiff’s copyright.

Chancellor Masters & Scholars vs. Narendra Publishing House – Delhi High Court

In this case, the plaintiff published a mathematics textbook aimed at school students. Subsequently, the defendant released their mathematics guidebook.

The plaintiff sought to stop the distribution of the guidebook, arguing that it was a copy of their work and that they held copyright over the original questions, answers, explanations, etc. presented in their book.

The defendant countered by asserting that this case fell under the ‘fair use’ defense provided by the Indian Copyright Act .

The court, in its decision, examined whether the purpose served by both works was the same.

It found that the plaintiff’s work included elements such as theoretical explanations that were absent in the defendant’s work.

Conversely, the defendant’s work provided a step-by-step guide on how to reach the answers to the questions, which was not available in the plaintiff’s work.

Given the significant differences in the purpose and manner of use for both works, the court determined that the defendant’s work was ‘transformative’ and could not be considered a replication of the plaintiff’s work.

Consequently, the court ruled that there was no copyright infringement in this case.

Related Article: Transformative copyright

Media Copyright Infringement Cases

Newspapers win copyright case against website.

This is a case that involves two newspapers, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times, and an independent website called Free Republic.

The newspapers claimed that Free Republic was posting their articles without permission, which was a violation of their copyrights.

The Free Republic argued that their posting of the articles, along with comments from users, was a “fair use” of copyrighted material .

They claimed that it allowed for discussion about how the media portrayed the news.

Courts Decision

The court ruled in favor of the newspapers, stating that Free Republic’s posting of news articles verbatim, even with added commentary, did not meet the requirements for a fair use defense .

The court also found that the newspapers’ work was mostly factual and not highly creative, so there was an argument for Free Republic’s fair use defense.

However, the court ultimately ruled that Free Republic’s use of the articles was not “transformative” and deprived the newspapers of the revenue they would have received for their archived articles.

Therefore, the court decided that Free Republic’s actions were a violation of the newspapers’ copyrights .

This case is important because it shows that even though news articles may contain factual information, they are still protected by copyright laws.

It also shows that fair use defenses are not always applicable, especially when the use of copyrighted material is not transformative and deprives the copyright owner of revenue.

Dainik Jagran Wins Copyright Infringement Case Against Telegram

Indian newspaper company Dainik Jagran recently won a legal battle against messaging app Telegram over copyright infringement.

Dainik Jagran had alleged that certain Telegram groups were sharing PDF copies of its newspaper, which had been downloaded for free from the company’s website.

Despite Dainik Jagran informing Telegram of the issue, the app took no action to remove the groups or stop the sharing of the newspaper.

The court found that Dainik Jagran’s copyright had been violated and issued an ad-interim injunction against Telegram.

Telegram was instructed to furnish details about the administrators and members of channels involved in the infringement and to remove such channels.

This case highlights the importance of respecting copyright laws and the rights of content creators.

It also shows that companies like Dainik Jagran have the legal tools to protect their intellectual property from infringement, even in the digital age.

Suggested Reading: Telegram copyright infringement

3 Music Cases of Copyright Infringement

Lana del rey vs radiohead.

In 2018, Lana Del Rey claimed that Radiohead was suing her over similarities between their 1992 song “Creep” and her song “Get Free” from her 2017 album “Lust for Life.”

However, Radiohead’s publishers denied taking legal action but requested credit for all writers of “Creep.” An analysis of the two songs revealed rare chord progressions and similar melodies, but the similarities were deemed unintentional.

During a Lollapalooza Brazil gig, Del Rey announced that the dispute was over and that she could now sing “Get Free” whenever she wanted.

Interestingly, Radiohead was previously accused of plagiarism due to similarities between “Creep” and The Hollies’ 1974 song “The Air That I Breathe.”

Radiohead ended up splitting royalties and co-writing credits with Albert Hammond and Mike Hazlewood.

The Chiffons vs. George Harrison

Facts: In 1970, George Harrison, a member of the Beatles, released his solo song “My Sweet Lord,” which became a hit and reached No. 1 on the charts.

However, the song was accused of bearing a striking resemblance to the 1962 hit song “He’s So Fine” by the Chiffons, written by Ronnie Mack.

Harrison’s manager, Alan Klein, attempted to purchase the rights to the original song from Bright Tunes Music Corporation, but they filed a plagiarism lawsuit in 1971, insisting on going to court.

The case took four years to go to trial.

Court’s Decision: In 1976, the court ruled that Harrison had access to the Chiffons’ song due to its widespread popularity, and although he may not have intentionally used it to create his version, he was guilty of “subconscious plagiarism.”

Harrison was ordered to pay $1,599,987 in damages in 1981, a significant amount at the time.

After purchasing Bright Tunes Music, Klein negotiated the sale of the song to Harrison, and the damages were eventually lowered to $587,000.

The case became a precedent for future copyright infringement lawsuits, establishing the concept of subconscious plagiarism as a valid form of infringement.

Chuck Berry vs. John Lennon

In 1969, John Lennon of the Beatles released a song called “Come Together” which was accused of being plagiarised from Chuck Berry’s 1956 hit “You Can’t Catch Me”.

Berry’s publisher, Big Seven Music, filed a lawsuit against Lennon’s publisher, Apple Records.

Berry claimed that Lennon had copied the lyrics and melody of his song and that Lennon had only slowed down the tempo and given it a funkier arrangement.

The lawsuit demanded an injunction to prevent further sale and broadcasting of the song and compensation for damages.

Courts decision:

The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, and Lennon agreed to record three more songs from the Berry catalog on his next album as part of the settlement.

However, Lennon only recorded two songs, which led to a breach of contract lawsuit filed against him by Big Seven Music’s owner Morris Levy.

The court ruled that Lennon had indeed breached the contract, and ordered him to pay $6,795 in damages.

Later, Levy released some of Lennon’s demo recordings through Big Seven Music without permission, which resulted in Lennon, Capitol Records, and EMI being awarded $109,700 in lost royalties, and Lennon was granted $35,000 in compensation for damages.

The Impact of Copyright Violation Cases

In the creative industry.

Copyright infringement court cases have a significant impact on the creative industry.

They serve as a reminder of the importance of protecting intellectual property and respecting the rights of creators.

These cases also highlight the need for clear and effective copyright laws to prevent the unauthorised use of creative works.

On the Economy

The economy can also be affected by copyright infringement cases.

When creators and copyright holders lose revenue due to infringement, it can lead to a reduction in investment in the creative industries. This, in turn, can hinder innovation and economic growth.

On the Legal System

Copyright infringement cases can place a significant burden on the legal system.

As technology continues to advance, the legal system must adapt to address new forms of infringement and ensure that creators’ rights are adequately protected.

This may require updates to existing laws and the development of new legal frameworks.

The examples of Copyright infringement cases serve as a reminder of the importance of respecting and protecting intellectual property rights.

By understanding copyright law, obtaining necessary permissions, and using copyright-free materials, individuals and businesses can avoid infringement and support the creative industries.

As technology continues to evolve, society must strike a balance between protecting creators’ rights and fostering innovation.

What is copyright infringement?

Copyright infringement occurs when someone uses a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder, such as copying, distributing, or creating derivative works.

What are some famous copyright infringement cases?

Notable copyright infringement cases include the Napster case, the Robin Thicke and Pharrell case, the Bratz and Barbie, and the Mathew and Walt Disney case.

What is the impact of copyright infringement lawsuit cases on the creative industry?

Copyright infringement cases serve as a reminder of the importance of protecting intellectual property and respecting creators’ rights, ensuring a healthy creative industry.

How can I avoid copyright infringement?

You can avoid copyright violation by understanding copyright law, obtaining necessary permissions from copyright holders, and using copyright-free materials.

What is the primary motivation behind registering for copyright protection, both for individuals and companies?

The main reason for individuals and companies to do copyright registration is to ensure that they have exclusive rights to their creative works and can profit from them without fear of copyright issues and violation.

Further Reading

• Apple vs Samsung Copyright Case
• Artist Copyright Infringement Cases
• Blogging and Copyright Infringement
• A Guide to Preventing Shutterstock Copyright Infringement
• Copyright Infringement Retract Request - What You Need to Know
• Architectural Copyright Infringement
• Higbee and Associates Copyright Infringement Letter
• Is Copyright Infringement Strict Liability
• Design Copyright Infringement Cases
• Louis Vuitton Copyright Case
• Alert Notice of Copyright Infringement: 4 Preventive Steps
• Innocent Copyright Infringement
• Facts About Copyright Infringement
• 13 Copyright Infringement Cases in India
• Copyright Infringement Cases in Books
• Copyright Infringement Statute of Limitations
• Copyright Infringement Insurance Explained
• Choreography Copyright Infringement Cases

Categorized in:

About the Author

Manish jindal.

Manish Jindal is a Co-Founder and COO of Bytescare, with expertise in investment banking and a CFA Charterholder. He actively advises startups, offering guidance in fundraising, team setup, and growth strategies.

Check latest articles from this author:

Is it illegal to impersonate someone, how to report an instagram account for impersonation, instagram account disabled for impersonation: what to do.

Copyright Alliance

• Who We Represent
• Community Partners
• Statements to Congress
• Agency and Other Filings
• Amicus Briefs
• Position Papers
• Copyright Act
• Copyright Regulations
• Copyright Compendium
• Copyright Cases
• Copyright Legislation
• Government Reports
• Congressional Hearings
• International Agreements
• Find a Copyright Attorney
• Creator Assistance Directory
• Find a Copyright Owner
• Copyright Facts by State
• Report Piracy
• Jobs in Copyright
• IPDC Program
• Press Releases
• Media Center
• Trending Topics
• Event Calendar
• Copyright Law Explained
• AI and Copyright
• CCB Explained
• Copyright Law by Industry
• Copyright Courses
• Join the Alliance
• Creator Voices
• Copyright Alliance Policy Alert
• AI Copyright Alert

The Copyright Alliance tracks important copyright cases. The table below lists copyright cases that we believe are important and could impact (or have already impacted) U.S. copyright law. In some cases, the Copyright Alliance will have filed an amicus brief in the case if the ruling by the court could broadly impact the creative community. A list of amicus briefs submitted by the Copyright Alliance can be found on our amicus briefs page .

• Registration
• D.C. Circuit
• Mandatory Deposit
• Ninth Circuit
• Personal Jurisdiction
• Fourth Circuit
• Copyrightability of annotations
• Exclusive Rights
• Remedies/Damages
• Fifth Circuit
• Southern District Court of Texas
• Sovereign Immunity
• First Court of Appeals of Texas
• Secondary Liability
• Second Circuit

• Library Catalog
• eBook Collections
• Theses & Dissertations
• Course Reserves
• Research Guides
• Government Documents
• Trial Subscriptions
• Clarkson Art Collection
• Services for Students
• Services for Faculty & Staff
• Services for Distance Users
• Services for Visitors & Alumni
• Library Hours
• Checkout & Return Policies
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Using the Library
• Copyright Basics
• Open Educational Resources
• Local Libraries
• Occupational Therapy (OT)
• Physical Therapy (PT)
• Physician Assistant (PA)
• Human Anatomy
• Drug Information
• Medical Calculators
• Literature Searching
• Citation Help
• Search Journals
• All Databases
• About the Libraries
• Library History
• Jobs at the Library
• Libraries Policies
• Mission, Vision & Values
• Library Staff

University Libraries

• Main Campus Front Desk (315) 268-2292
• Ask a Librarian [email protected]
• Example Copyright Cases

Common Questions & Examples

• American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc. American Geophysical Union and 82 other publishers which sold journal subscriptions to Texaco alleged that Texaco’s employees infringed their copyrights by repeatedly photocopying individual journal articles without permission and distributing them. The court found that this was not fair use because Texaco’s actions were “part of a systematic process of encouraging employee researchers to copy articles so as to multiply available copies while avoiding payment.” The court found that employees were copying whole articles and that such copying interfered with the commercial value of the articles.
• Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko’s Kinko’s used course readings lists from colleges and, without asking permission or paying copyright fees, photocopied excerpts from assigned readings to create “course packets,” which they sold to students at a profit. The court found that this was not fair use, as it was for a commercial purpose and would harm publishers’ sales. The court also noted that there was no compelling educational reason to copy the materials without permission or paying fees.
• Camridge University Press v. Patton Cambridge University Press (and others) sued Georgia State University for infringing copyright by allowing unlicensed portions of their works to be posted on university systems for students to obtain electronically. The court found that most of the instances were fair use, and that a “holistic analysis” of each instance was required to “carefully balance” all four Fair Use factors. The court also noted that not all four factors must be given equal weight.
• Posner on Copyright – 10 Cases to Remember
• Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. Michigan Document Services, Inc., a commercial photography shop, copied significant portions of written materials that were assigned readings for University of Michigan courses. They assembled these materials into “coursepacks” offered for sale to students. The copyright owners of the materials sued. The court found that this was not Fair Use. The court pointed to the commercial nature of the business and the profit made from the coursepacks, as well as the potential damage to the market for the copyrighted works.
• Stanford University Libraries – Summaries of Fair Use Cases Summarizes a variety of Fair Use court cases, some academic and some not. Include cases where Fair Use was found, as well as cases where it was not.
• U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index An index of federal court cases court cases regarding fair use.
• Univeristy of Florida – Summary of Cases on Copyright in Education Summary of several cases involving educational arguments in a copyright dispute, including links to materials on each case such as commentary, lawyers’ arguments, and case opinions.

Can I post a PDF of a journal article the library subscribes to in my Moodle Course?

Maybe. Generally speaking, if an item meets the requirements set out under Fair Use or the TEACH Act, materials can be shared in a password protected learning management system like Moodle for a limited period of time. Factors to consider are how many students will have access to the course and how long the materials will be available, including whether it will be available for multiple semesters. More students and longer access weigh against fair use. You will need to consider the Fair Use factors to decide whether your use of the materials falls under Fair Use.

However,  even if it is considered fair use , some library database user agreements may prohibit the sharing of articles or other materials in this way, so the best practice is to link to the article in the database by using a permanent URL, rather than uploading the PDF. This will also allow students to access the most up to date version of the material.

Can I show a DVD or Blu-Ray video in my classroom?

Yes, as long as it is for classroom instruction and no admission fee is charged.

Can I show a DVD or Blu-Ray video in a non-classroom context?

Generally not, unless permission has been obtained from the copyright holder.

Can I Stream a Netflix (or other streaming service) Video in My Classroom?

If you are using a video streaming service licensed through the library or your department that is intended for that purpose, yes. You can see the options available via the library here . 

What about personal streaming services?

Netflix does allow some films to be shown in an educational context under certain conditions. See their page here for details . You can search media.netflix.com to see which films may be shown by educators.

However, make sure you are using approved films only, as most user agreements do not allow public screenings. “When one signs a license agreement, he or she often gives away certain freedoms, such as copyright exceptions. The Netflix user agreement overtly conveys “the Software is only for your own personal, non-commercial use and not for use in the operation of a business or service bureau, for profit or for the benefit or any other person or entity.” Most copyright attorneys comprehend the phrase “for your own personal… use” as giving away your statutory exceptions to use section 110(1) and even section 107 (fair use).” –  Kris Helge, Scholarly Communications Librarian at the University of North Texas. “May One Stream a Netflix Video for In-Class Use?”

If you wish to use a streaming service to show a video in your classroom, you will need to check your user agreement to see if it prohibits you from using it for a public showing.

Can I post a PDF of a journal article to my faculty website?

Probably not. If the website is available to the general public and is not password protected, this would probably not be considered a Fair Use because you cannot be sure it will only be used for academic purposes.

Can I copy articles to create a Course Pack for my students?

Probably not. Generally speaking, you need to ask copyright permission before reproducing copyrighted materials for use in a course pack. However, information in the Public Domain would be an exception.

Can I photocopy one article from a journal for my own personal use?

Yes, this would probably be considered Fair Use.

Can I make materials from the university archives publicly available online?

It depends. If the materials are still covered by copyright, it may not be possible to make the materials publicly available on-line, unless the donor has given permission. Materials need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Can I use copyrighted photos or music in my classroom presentation?

Yes, this would generally be considered a fair use of the materials if it is for instructional purposes. You should make sure you cite the original creator, however.

Can I use copyrighted materials in an open-access educational course? Can my students use copyrighted materials in an open-access project?

Probably not. Generally a distinction is made between a password protected on-line course and websites or courses that are not password protected.

Copyright issues for cases

By  Clare Painter , January 2017

In today’s digital world, it is easier than ever before to reuse and redistribute content, but copyright legislation varies across the world, and has advanced far more slowly than technology. We used to think that copyright for written works was only of interest to publishers and authors, but this is no longer true.

Business schools, along with businesses, societies and other organisations, are increasingly taking practical steps to manage these risks, bringing consistency to the way copyright material is used in print and online, and making it easier to share good practice across the organisation. Often, the school will make available practical copyright advice and assistance for faculty members.

For the organisation, a Copyright Audit is often the first step, helping to spot any gaps in the way copyright is currently managed, and defining the copyrights and licences which they already hold.

You will save time and avoid pitfalls more easily if you have copyright guidelines and templates to refer to. For example, should requests for reuse always be passed back to the business school, rather than being handled by faculty authors directly?

What does this mean for faculty?

Digital publishing and distribution undoubtedly offer you opportunities to reach a wider audience but, to avoid copyright problems, you do need to pay a little more attention to any third party material you incorporate.

Writing a case: copyright questions

What has changed in the way copyright affects cases? In this article we’ll explore creating, teaching, distributing and handling permissions for your case.

Types of content

• Naturally, you will have the involvement of the company described in the case, and copyright releases for all the work you have done together.
• Next, there is your own text, and perhaps also your own images. These may automatically be owned by your business school, depending on the arrangement you have with them.
• Are you using public domain material, or content offered under an open licence? Look out for any special terms which might trip you up: for example, some open licences don’t allow you to make modifications.
• Content found freely accessible online can cause problems, as so much is uploaded in breach of copyright, whether knowingly or not. Identifying who legitimately owns copyright is therefore important, but not always easy.
• Begin by applying a “common sense” test. Is it clear who created the material, and does that match with the name of the user who uploaded it on the webpage where you found it?
• If the material is no longer protected by copyright, have you considered other related rights? For example, a figure might have been adapted from another work.

Tips for clearing permissions

• Both in print and online?
• Only for course participants at your school, or also available externally?
• How many participants/readers are expected?
• Licence period, territory (usually worldwide), language/s used?
• Are you likely to be able to clear a licence which covers all the above?
• If it’s likely to be difficult, an alternative source might be quicker and less complicated.
• Start early! Rights holders will sometimes take time to respond, but you cannot assume they agree if they are slow to reply! It could happen that your request is refused.
• If you don’t hear back promptly, chase for a reply but wait before publishing.

Copyright rules are still catching up with the nuances of linking to or embedding third party content. This is further complicated by the fact that digital publishing is, effectively, worldwide, so we have to bear in mind the approaches taken by multiple jurisdictions.

A recent case in the German courts, for instance, ruled that you should only use links to properly authorised content. That might sound obvious, but sites such as Google Images and YouTube do not themselves own any of the content featured on their sites .

It’s therefore entirely up to you to check whether material has been uploaded by the legitimate rights holder, or by someone else. Certain rights holders also require you to notify them when you link, though this is quick to do.

When you receive a request for reuse

You may find that requests for republication or permission come to you directly, either as a brief email or publisher’s contract. However, many schools retain copyright in the work you have carried out as part of your faculty role, in which case they will negotiate licences directly. Check with the person who manages copyright at your school.

Avoiding pitfalls: reuse in a textbook

Let’s take an example: a publisher wants to republish your case, perhaps in a textbook, and sends you their standard contract. The fees for such reuse can vary widely vary depending on the amount of material being used and the level of anticipated sales.

However, there can also be copyright issues:

• teaching use – you want to be sure that you can still use the case in your teaching: check what the contract says about exclusivity, and reuse after publication.
• permissions – usually you and/or the school are responsible for any necessary clearances. Make sure you have – and keep – all permission records. If a copyright holder makes a legal claim after publication, this will be passed on to you.
• signatories – as above, make sure you know whether it’s you or the school who should agree the licence.
• Ask whether your business school provides copyright guidelines and templates you can use.
• When writing a case, remember to check all materials in case you need permission.
• Make sure you’re using authorised sources, to avoid disputes.
• If someone approaches you requesting permission, check first whether that request should go straight to your school.
• Ask whether your business school has run a Copyright Audit to clarify the copyrights they own or have licensed. It’s a great way to get a clear view of copyright assets and risks, and to set out realistic and practical next steps.

More case method features

Clare helps organisations to manage copyright issues and digital licensing, especially where licence terms need to be both effective and practical.

In this introductory guide to writing cases we'll discuss choosing a format, explore how to inspire classroom discussion and discover how to publish your case.

A guide to case writing

Most popular.

• Preview copies

In this introductory guide to teaching with cases we ask why teach with cases, explore how to prepare for case teaching, and introduce some tools and techniques. 

Discover more

• Law of torts – Complete Reading Material
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – September 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 5 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – December 2019
• Sign in / Join

• Copyright law

Top Cases of Copyright Law in 2019

This article is written by Arijit Mishra , from KIIT School of Law, Odisha. This article talks about the top cases under copyright in 2019.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The word copyright means “right to work” where the creator or the authorised person has the right to produce the work. It is a legal right possessed by the owner under Intellectual Property. Where with the help of mental or intellectual ability, a person creates a unique product, that is considered as original. Those unique products include music, lyrics, literature, graphic designs, films etc.. Copyright acts as a safeguard to protect an original work from duplicated. Once a creator registers his product under copyright, he can file a suit against anyone who copies his work. This concept helps the artists and creators to work without fear and create original products where there is no subject of plagiarism by other people. The copyright holder has the complete right and control over adaption or reproduction of the work. After the death of the innovator, the copyrights last for upto 60 years. 

Top cases on Copyright in 2019

Sanjeev pillai vs. vennu kurnapalli and anr .

‘Mamankan’ is a festival which is held once every 12 years on the bank of the Bharathpuzha river in Kerala. The appellant Sanjeev Pillai who was a scriptwriter as well as a director said that he has researched the history of Mamankan and has written a script for the film. For this project, he met Venu Kunnapalli who was the first respondent, who was supposed to work as a producer to make a film based on that script. After that, he signed an MoU with Kavya film Company which was linked with Kunnapalli. In this film, Pillai was appointed as the director, but after the completion of the two shoots, his service was terminated and replaced with someone else. The shooting of the film was completed by some modification on his script. Pillai filed a suit seeking for relief and also filed an interim injunction application to restrain the respondent from releasing, publishing or exploiting the film Manankan, and also restrain him from pre-release publicity till it is not given proper adequate authorship credits to Pillai as per film industry standards.

Whether the author of the work will have special rights for claiming authorship of his work under Section 57(1) of the Copyright Act?

The court analysed that Section 57(1) of the Copyrights Act prescribes that even after the argument of the copyright in a work, the author has special rights to claim authorship of the work. The court also noted that Pillai has a prima facie case against the respondent and his legal rights would not exhaust to claim authorship over it.

Therefore the Court took a balanced view:

• All arrangements for the release are made by the producer, postponement of the same may cause huge damage to Kunnapalli.
• In the film industry, the work of so many people is involved in making a film, if it gets postponed it would definitely cause difficulties to all those people.
• However, the rights of Pillai cannot be refused.

Based on these above points, the Court held that the film will be released without showing anyone’s name as the scriptwriter or the writer of the screenplay until the disposal of the suit is made. The court also stated that the issue of whether the respondent modified or mutilated the script was a big question which will be decided after the trial.  

Tips Industries Vs. Wynk Music

Tips Industries Ltd (plaintiff) is an Indian music label that operates copyright over a significant music repository which in 2016, was granted a license to access the repository by Wynk. During the expiry of the said licence, they decided to re-enter the licensing conditions but failed to do so. After this Wynk took the safe side by citing Section 31D of the Copyright Act. Tips challenged Wynk citing Section 31D, and prosecuted Wynk in accordance with Section 14(1)(e) for breach of their exclusive rights of sound recording.

Whether statutory licensing scheme exists under the Copyright Act to online streaming services?

After hearing both parties, Bombay High Court held Wynk guilty of direct infringement under two grounds:

• To offer the copyrighted work under Section 14(1)(e)(ii) which allows the user to listen and download to the plaintiff’s work offline.
• Under Section 14(1)(e)(iii) for conveying the plaintiff’s work to the users through their streaming service.

In addition to this, Bombay High Court cleared out the ambiguity that existed regarding the online streaming services falling under the scope of Section 31D.

• Under Section 31D of Copyright Act ‘download/Purchase’ of such copyrighted work is not covered.

Wynk Music approved the users to store or download copyrighted music for future use which was established to be a “sale” and not “communication made to the public” which constitute as a broadcast under Section 31D. Hence, no claim for statutory license exists for using such copyrighted work by Wynk Music.

• The application of Section 31D does not include Internet Broadcasting.

The Court found Section 31D as an exception which can be strictly interpreted. After the examination of the statutory scheme of 31D, it becomes apparent that statutory licensing is only intended to radio and television broadcasting and not internet broadcasting. The memorandum presented by the defendant does not have any additional weightage of their claim, it only functions as “guidelines’ ‘ and lacks statutory authority and has no influence to the scope of their claim.

The judgement was passed in favour of plaintiff and an interim injunction was given to the plaintiff, having regard that they made it a prima facie case and would suffer irreparable damage in the way of lost revenue. 

Raj Rewal Vs. UOI and Ors

The Hall of Nations Building was designed by Mr.Raj Rewal and Mr. Mahendra Raj . The said building was treated as an icon of modernist Indian architecture which was built in the Pragati Maidan in New Delhi. In 2016, the IPTO proposed to demolish the Hall of Nations Building for building an “Integrated Exhibition cum Convention Centre”. After several attempts by the plaintiff to protect such buildings from demolition, he cannot stop it from demolition. After the demolition of the building plaintiff filed a suit against the actions of IPTO for claiming that the actions of demolition by ITPO had infringed the plaintiff’s special right under Section 57 of this Act.

Whether the architect or the “author” of a structure has a right placed in him to prevent such  demolition or modification of their work by the owner of the building?

The Court rejected the claim made by the plaintiff and stated that there is an issue of conflict of two different rights i.e Section 57 the architects rights and the landowners rights to practice acts concerning their property. The Court noticed that the plaintiff is not allowed to prevent the demolition of the building because it put restrictions on defendant’s right to practice their control over their property. Property which is provided to them under Article 300A is a constitutional right which is acquired over the statutory right of plaintiff, which they request to exist under Section 57 of Copyright Act, 1957.

The court stated that the rights of the author under Section 57 to forbid ‘ distortion, mutilation or modification of his work, which does not approve an author to prevent complete destruction of their work ‘that cant be viewed, heard, seen or felt’ and cannot affect the reputation of the author. The Court reasoned that the ‘construction’ for future events under Section 52(1)(x) could only happen if the building has already been demolished and therefore stated that Section 57 could not reasonably view the right to object to the demolition of the building. At last, the Court dismissed the suit because due to the lack of cause of action against the demolition of the Hall of Nations.

Yash Raj Films Vs. Sri Sai Ganesh Productions

The suit of copyright infringement was filed against Sri Sai Ganesh Productions by Yash Raj Films Pvt. Limited on the grounds that Ganesh has copied the movie Band Baaja Baaraat which is produced under Yash Raj Films. Jabardasth is a film by Sri Sai Ganesh Productions which had substantial and material similarities in terms of theme, plot, character, sketches and expressions amongst other things.

Whether copyright exists in a cinematography film and the underlying works that are made up of?

Whether expressions under Section14 (made a copy of the film) means to prepare a physical copy of the film only?

Is there any substantial and material similarity between the two films?

When the Court was determining with the first issue, the court took a reference of a case MRF Limited Vs. Metro Tyres Ltd., in which Court stated that copyright exists in a “cinematograph film” and the works that come together to constitute it and there must be an original work to exist in “cinematographic film” which will be read in Section13(1)(b) of the Copyright Act,1957 through Section13(3)(a) and 2(d) of the Act. While determining with the second issue, the court held that “to make a copy of the film” stated under Section14(d)(i) of the Act does not mean creating a hard copy of the film by process of duplication. As the films are protected like original works, the Court increased the “test of originality” which is set out in the case of R.G Anand Vs. Deluxe Films for distinguishing two films on the basis of “substance, foundation and Kernel’’. So, the Court found that the defendants had replicated the fundamental, essential and features of the plaintiff’s film.

UTV Software Communication Limited Vs. 1337X.TO and Ors

In this case, the plaintiff including UTV Software Communication Limited, are companies connected in creating content and distributing cinematographic films around the world including India. The defendants among others, thirty identified websites including John Doe defendants, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Department of Telecom and various ISPs.

The plaintiff argues that the defendant provides access to their copyrighted works, in such a manner that it violates their rights under the Indian Copyright Act. The plaintiff provided evidence to access a sample of such infringing content that the websites were engaged in online piracy. The defendant did not respond to the summons since when they hosted it outside India. However, the issue is reflected on the question of law “the general public importance, the Court appointed an impartial adviser, Mr. Hemant Singh to assist the Court on the question of law with its determination. 

Whether a copyright infringer on the Internet is treated differently from an infringer in the physical world?

How should the Court deal with the “Rogue Websites” which are blocked and again get resurfaced by changing it to some alphanumeric websites? 

The Court held that “dynamic injunction” stemmed from specific provisions under Singapore Law. However, the court held that it was within its inherent powers under Section 151 CPC to make a solution of similar nature and that the plaintiff could avail the same injunction by implementing additional websites under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC . This process would be helpful in reducing piracy by “Rogue Websites” and also in reducing the burden on the copyright owners to go through such a difficult route of litigation over and again.

Finally, the Court directs MeitY and the DoT who are the defendants in this case, to consider a suggestion where they can come with a policy for a scheme, where individuals who access “pirated content” if they don’t refrain from continuing such actions then they will be fined for it.

• https://www.intepat.com/blog/copyright/5-copyright-cases-2019-india/
• https://spicyip.com/2019/09/tips-industries-v-wynk-music-a-case-of-statutory-mis-interpretation.html
• https://spicyip.com/2019/12/kerala-hc-directs-film-release-without-script-writers-name-in-mamankam-moral-rights-dispute.html
• https://spicyip.com/2019/04/breaking-delhi-high-court-issues-indias-first-dynamic-website-blocking-injunction-for-copyright-infringement.html

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on  Instagram  and subscribe to our  YouTube  channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Schools of hindu law, is kissing illegal in india, analysing copyright violation by generative ai , leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

International Opportunities in Contract Drafting

Register now

Thank you for registering with us, you made the right choice.

Congratulations! You have successfully registered for the webinar. See you there.

The Internet Archive has lost the appeal for its landmark copyright case, agreeing to pay an undisclosed amount to publishers

This has been four years in the making.

In March 2023, the landmark case Hatchette Book Group Inc. v. Internet Archive ruled in Hatchett's favour. Now, over a year into an appeals process, the Internet Archive's appeal has been shut down. 

This all stems from a decision made at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. As lockdowns started to happen, and the public was no longer able to go to libraries—thereby giving them less access to books—the Internet Archive opened up its library to the public, where users could "lend" books (via Wired ). 

The National Emergency Library, as this scheme was called, operated from March 24 to June 2020, providing a "temporary collection of books that supported emergency remote teaching, research activities, independent scholarship, and intellectual stimulation".

Previously, digital versions of these ebooks would represent physical copies it had access to. You could put your name down on a waiting list, where users would essentially share access to the digital representation of the book. A ticketing system was put in place for users to read the ebook copies of them.

However, when the waitlist restriction was removed in early 2020, Hatchette Book Group sued the Internet Archive, claiming doing so constitutes copyright infringement.

Many publishers and authors argued this was "tantamount to piracy", and the Internet Archive has made an agreement to pay an undisclosed amount to the publishers whose books were replicated during the months. This decision has been met with ire ( as the replies to this post show ),  as providing educational tools for free can stop the often prohibitively expensive barriers of getting your own. 

As someone who did Law as part of my degree, I can attest that paying hundreds for books as a student is nearly infeasible. Though this case is now effectively over, The Internet Archive has seen huge swathes of support online for its efforts since early 2020.

The biggest gaming news, reviews and hardware deals

Keep up to date with the most important stories and the best deals, as picked by the PC Gamer team.

Though the decision does seem to be the correct one, in a legal sense, it's hard not to lament the further sheltering of texts that could serve to help many with their education. Fundamentally, books used to educate people serve a different purpose to those used to entertain primarily, yet that distinction is always that important in a legal context.

Hopefully, the broader societal pushback around this case will push publishers into being a bit more "generous" with the works currently being hoarded.  

For when you need to archive your data

Best SSD for gaming : The best speedy storage today. Best NVMe SSD : Compact M.2 drives. Best external hard drive : Huge capacities for less. Best external SSD : Plug-in storage upgrades.

James is a more recent PC gaming convert, often admiring graphics cards, cases, and motherboards from afar. It was not until 2019, after just finishing a degree in law and media, that they decided to throw out the last few years of education, build their PC, and start writing about gaming instead. In that time, he has covered the latest doodads, contraptions, and gismos, and loved every second of it. Hey, it’s better than writing case briefs.

Roblox shows new 3D AI tool gunning for 'realtime creation integrated with gameplay'

Roblox CEO delivers imperial announcement that the goal is '1 billion daily active users' and 10% of all global gaming revenue, thanks

Baldur's Gate 3's latest patch is not the final update, Larian says: 'The chefs must cook'

Most Popular

• 2 Best 14-inch gaming laptop in 2024: The top compact gaming laptops I've held in these hands
• 3 Best Mini-ITX motherboards in 2024: My pick from all the mini mobo marvels I've tested
• 4 Best RAM for gaming in 2024: I've tested the best DDR4 and DDR5 RAM to find the right kits for you
• 5 Best ultrawide monitor for gaming in 2024: the expansive panels I recommend for PC gamers
• 2 VKB Gladiator NXT EVO F-14 Combat Edition + STECS Throttle System review
• 3 Shure MV6 USB Gaming Microphone review
• 4 Dezctop Bifrost Elite 160 gaming desk review
• 5 Kinesis Form ergonomic keyboard review

• About IPWatchdog
• IPWatchdog Team
• Article Submission
• Contributors

District Court Issues Mixed Ruling in Blackbeard Copyright Case

“The CRCA, of course, went too far in abrogating state sovereign immunity for it be a valid prophylactic abrogation, but it is still available otherwise.” – District Court Order

Model of the Queen Anne’s Revenge in the North Carolina Museum of History

On August 29, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina issued an order addressing several motions in Allen v. Cooper, a case that mirrors the back-and-forth nature of an epic maritime battle—this time, between a government and an individual.

The case, covered previously here , began with an alleged copyright infringement, but has blossomed into a larger suit, alleging multiple constitutional violations.

In 1996, the wreck of the Queen Anne’s Revenge, notable for carrying the famous pirate Blackbeard, was discovered off the coast of North Carolina. After obtaining salvaging rights from the state, the salvaging company contracted with Nautilus Productions, LLC to document the recovery process. Led by Frederick Allen, Nautilus took several photographs and videos of the wreck site, copyrighting them with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Years later, Allen discovered that his pictures were being used by the North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources (DNCR) on its website without his permission. The parties ultimately settled without litigating the issue, but the DNCR kept using the photos after the agreement. Concurrently, the North Carolina General Assembly codified “Blackbeard’s Law,” which declared all photographs, video records, or documentary materials of a derelict vessel or shipwreck in the custody of North Carolina to be in the public domain.

Allen filed suit against the State, alleging, among other things, that the new law was an unconstitutional taking under both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The State responded by claiming sovereign immunity, which Allen believed was abrogated by the 1990 Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA). The Supreme Court of the United States eventually agreed with the State , holding that the CRCA did not abrogate the state’s sovereign immunity.

New jurisprudence that further developed the constitutional analysis of a taking prompted Allen to file a motion to reconsider, which was granted. His second amended complaint was filed in February 2023, containing ten counts alleging multiple violations and naming North Carolina, the DNCR, the Governor, and other officials as defendants. The case then grew even murkier as the North Carolina General Assembly repealed “Blackbeard’s Law” in August of the same year.

The State challenged the complaint by filing several Rule 12 motions, including a motion to strike the complaint and a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

The motion to strike was first granted in part and denied in part. The State argued that Allen exceeded the scope of the court’s order granting leave to amend, and indeed, since Allen had moved to reconsider a count alleging an unconstitutional taking and related denial of due process, the court quickly struck the counts exceeding the scope.

Prophylactic Abrogation

  The State next argued for the case’s dismissal on grounds that sovereign immunity forbids a claim against the state without its consent or abrogation via Congressional action. When exercising its power to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity, Congress can either legislate broadly to deter or remedy constitutional violations (prophylactic abrogation) or create private remedies against the states for actual Fourteenth Amendment violations (case-by-case abrogation).

Allen alleged that the court had subject matter jurisdiction because the “self-executing nature” of the Fifth Amendment abrogated state sovereign immunity, relying on the newly decided Knick v. Township of Scott . The court did not agree with Allen’s argument, however, as another binding Fourth Circuit case, Zito v. North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission , found that Knick did not alter the sovereign immunity framework.

Instead, the court said there was a more appropriate route through state court by applying the reasoning in Hutto v. South Carolina Retirement System :

  “Just as in Reich, where the Supreme Court noted that the Due Process Clause did not abrogate state sovereign immunity in federal court when state courts remain open for those claims, so too did Hutto conclude that state sovereign immunity bars Fifth Amendment takings claim against States in federal court when the State’s courts remain open to adjudicate such claims.”

Thus, Allen could not bring a claim under the theory of prophylactic abrogation unless North Carolina failed to provide a means for challenging an action as a taking. And since the North Carolina Constitution protected against takings of private property without compensation, the requirement was met, and the argument failed.

Case-By-Case Abrogation

Allen next argued that claim-by-claim abrogation under United States v. Georgia allowed his copyright infringement, takings, and procedural due process claims to proceed in federal court. The three-part test applied in Georgia consists of “(1) which aspects of the State’s alleged conduct violated [a federal statute]; (2) to what extent such misconduct also violated the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) insofar as such misconduct violated [the federal statute] but did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether Congress’s purported abrogation of sovereign immunity as to that class of conduct is nevertheless valid.

The court analyzed the first prong – since Allen alleged a copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, he only needed to demonstrate that the elements of infringement were plausibly met. This prong, said that court, was satisfied – Allen alleged that the State published images without his consent and maliciously passed a law targeting his ongoing dispute.

Allen also claimed individual constitutional violations under the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, suggesting that the State, by placing his images into the public domain, took his property without an opportunity to be heard. To determine whether this argument was appropriate, the court applied the Penn Central test for takings. Ultimately, his argument failed, as the court concluded that Allen could not plead facts to show a substantial diminution in the value of the property. Further, the State’s infringements were not “functionally equivalent to a classic taking,” and the argument failed.

While the individual constitutional violation argument failed, Allen also asserted that the DNCR’s copyright infringements constituted a denial of due process using the same case-by-case abrogation argument. To invoke the due process clause, the infringement had to be intentional or (at least) reckless and lack an adequate remedy. The first prong was established previously, and the court ruled that “the adequacy of post-deprivation remedies must come after a determination that the demands of due process can be satisfied through post-deprivation remedies.” The fact that the State enacted Blackbeard’s Law as a way to deal with the ongoing dispute with Allen meant that it could have foreseen a deprivation of procedural due process. Thus, Allen alleged an actual constitutional violation under Georgia, and this claim was allowed to proceed .

Lastly, the court addressed the State’s claim that a violation of the Copyright Act does not align with the due process deprivation for Georgia purposes. The state relied on a footnote from a separate case, which had guided other district courts to dismiss Georgia claims that pair copyright infringement and due process claims. But this was only dicta and not binding, said the court, adding that  it refused to read Georgia so narrowly. The order explained:

“Nothing in Georgia indicates that the Supreme Court limited its decision to the statutory violation in that case or required the actual constitutional violation to be anything other than that – an actual constitutional violation…. A violation of the Copyright Act combined with an actual due process violation checks all of Georgia’ s boxes…. The CRCA, of course, went too far in abrogating state sovereign immunity for it be a valid prophylactic abrogation, but it is still available otherwise.”

Thus, both the motion to strike and the motion to dismiss were granted in part and denied in part and Allen was allowed to proceed on his claims for direct copyright infringement and procedural due process.

In a press release sent to IPWatchdog, Allen said he is grateful for the ruling: “Our number one focus continues to be protecting the rights of all artists and creators from theft of their creative works by states and state agencies. North Carolina’s claim that it can sue its citizens for copyright infringement, but face no liability for its own state-led copyright theft, is not only unethical, but unconstitutional.”

This article was updated on 9-6 to correct an error referencing the USPTO rather than the U.S. Copyright Office.

Help Support IPWatchdog: Why Your Donation Matters

At IPWatchdog, we are dedicated to providing in-depth analysis, news, and educational content on intellectual property law and policy. As an independent media company, we rely on the support of our sponsors and our community to maintain the quality and accessibility of our resources. Your donation enables us to continue our mission, ensuring that innovators, attorneys, and enthusiasts have access to the latest insights and developments in the field. By donating, you are not only helping us sustain our operations but also contributing to the growth and advancement of the intellectual property community.

Every contribution, no matter the size, is greatly appreciated and makes a difference.

Help Support IPWatchdog With a Donation

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com.

Join the Discussion

4 comments so far. Add my comment.

I am left wondering if a thought that occurred to me when this matter first received attention is still in play:

IF a state does have Sovereign Immunity, does this mean that ALL State actors – and here I look specifically to teachers within the respective State institutions – may ‘appropriate’ and use ANY manner of otherwise copyrighted works – including but not limited to scholarly articles, Big Hollywood items, Big Music items, and even Big Software items?

Would this even include actions by these teachers of making copies for each and every student (with a provisio for argument’s sake, that such copy was strictly for class use)?

Mike Cicero

I also published an article here in early 2023, when the Second Amended Complaint in the case was filed. See https://ipwatchdog.com/2023/02/23/allen-v-cooper-back-queen-annes-vengeance/id=156986/ .

Eileen McDermott

Thanks @editor, I’ve corrected that.

Nice article – except this part: “Nautilus took several photographs and videos of the wreck site, copyrighting them with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)”. Copyright office not USPTO handles copyrights.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

Varsity Sponsors

Latest IPW Posts

Other barks & bites for friday, september 6: house version of pera introduced; judicial council confirms extension of newman suspension; openai asks court to dismiss claims and focus on fair use in copyright battle, report: the united states is leading the genai race – not china, how to satisfy constitutional and statutory standing requirements in patent infringement actions, book publishers win at second circuit: internet archive’s free library is not fair use, ipwatchdog events, webinar: managing trademark workflows more efficiently and profitably, webinar – sponsored by anaqua, ipwatchdog live 2024 at the renaissance arlington capital view, life sciences masters™ 2024, industry events, executive education: pharmaceuticals and the law, litfincon – the premier litigation finance conference, fall institute on intellectual property by hipla & ipil, from ipwatchdog.

More from IPWatchdog

September 5, 2024

September 4, 2024

Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better experience. Read our privacy policy for more information. Accept and Close

• Open Rulemaking

CASE Act and the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) Implementation Regulations

Pursuant to the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act of 2020, the U.S. Copyright Office has issued a notification of inquiry seeking public comment regarding regulations implementing to establish the new Copyright Claims Board (CCB), a voluntary “small copyright claims” tribunal comprised comprising of three Copyright Claims Officers who will have the authority to render determinations on certain copyright claims of low financial valuedisputes. The CCB will begin operations as early as December 27, 2021. The CASE Act directs the Copyright Office to adopt several regulations to govern the CCB and its procedures, including rules addressing service of notice and other documents, waiver of personal service, notifications that parties are opting out of participating in the forum, discovery, a mechanism for certain claims to be resolved by a single CCB Officer, review of CCB determinations by the Register of Copyrights, publication of records, certifications, and fees. The statute further vests the Office with general authority to adopt such regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate the Board. The statute also allows the Office to adopt several optional regulations, including regulations addressing claimants’ permissible number of cases, eligible classes of works, the conduct of proceedings, and default determinations. The statute vests the Office with general authority to adopt regulations to carry out its provisions.

To assist in promulgating these regulations, the Office seeks public comment regarding the subjects of inquiry set out in its notification of inquiry. After the Office reviews the comments received in response to this notification of inquiry, the Office plans to publish multiple notices of proposed rulemaking, each focusing on one or more of the regulatory categories discussed in the notification. These subsequent notices will be phased as appropriate to permit sufficient time to comment further on these issues.

For more background on the CCB, the Office has established an informational webpage , which will be frequently updated as implementation work proceeds.

Initial written comments to the notification of inquiry were due April 26, 2021. Written reply comments were due May 10, 2021.

Notification of Inquiry

• March 26, 2021 - Notification of Inquiry

Related Information

• Copyright Small Claims policy study
• CASE Act (statutory text)
• About the Copyright Small Claims and the Copyright Claims Board

Additional Record Materials

• Ex Parte Communications

ChatGPT: A Case Study on Copyright Challenges for Generative AI Systems

European Journal of Risk Regulation (2023), 1–23

23 Pages Posted: 25 Jun 2023 Last revised: 6 Sep 2023

Nicola Lucchi

Universitat Pompeu Fabra - Department of Law

Date Written: June 12, 2023

This article focuses on copyright issues pertaining to generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems, with particular emphasis on the ChatGPT case study as a primary exemplar. In order to generate high-quality outcomes, generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems necessitate substantial quantities of training data, which may frequently comprise copyright protected information. This prompts inquiries into the legal principles of fair use, the creation of derivative works, and the lawfulness of data gathering and utilization. The utilization of input data for the purpose of training and enhancing AI models presents significant concerns regarding potential violations of copyright. This paper offers suggestions for safeguarding the interests of copyright holders and competitors, while simultaneously addressing legal challenges and expediting the advancement of artificial intelligence technologies. This study analyzes the ChatGPT platform as a case example to explore the necessary modifications that copyright regulations must undergo to adequately tackle the intricacies of authorship and ownership in the realm of AI-generated creative content.

Keywords: Copyright; Artificial Intelligence; Language Models; ChatGPT; Intellectual Property; Training data; Data sharing

JEL Classification: K10; K22

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Nicola Lucchi (Contact Author)

Universitat pompeu fabra - department of law ( email ).

Ramon Trias Fargas 25-27 Barcelona, 08005 Spain

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, intellectual property: copyright law ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Entrepreneurship & Law eJournal

Law & society: private law - intellectual property ejournal, artificial intelligence - law, policy, & ethics ejournal, innovation law & policy ejournal.

Top 5 Copyright Cases of 2019 in India

Top 5 Copyright Cases in 2019

1. sajeev pillai v. venukunnapalli & anr.

Does the author of work, even after the assignment of work, have special rights to claim authorship of his work provided under Section 57(1) of the Copyright Act?

The appellant, Sajeev Pillai, a film director, and a scriptwriter, claimed to have researched the history of the grand festival Mamankam and prepared a script for a movie based on the same epic. He met VenuKunnapalli and signed an MoU with Kavya Film Company which was associated with Kunnapalli. Sajeev was initially appointed as the director, but his service was terminated and replaced by someone else. The movie’s shooting was after that completed, which Sajeev alleged was done by mutilating, distorting, and modifying his script. Sajeev, in light of that, filed a suit seeking various reliefs. An interim injunction application was filed to restrain the respondents from releasing, publishing, distributing, and exploiting the film and issuing pre-release publicity without providing good authorship credits to Pillai as per film industry standards.

In deciding the issue, the Court noted that the first sub-section of Section 57(1) provides the author to restrain third parties. The second sub-section provides the author the entitlement to claim damages by such a third party for any distortion, mutilation, or other modifications to his work or any other action that would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. This provided the appellant an unparalleled advantage in the case and that his copyright assignment of the work would not exhaust the legal right to claim authorship over it.

2. Tips Industries v Wynk Music

Does a statutory licensing scheme exist under the Copyright Act for online streaming services?

Background: The dispute centers around section 31D of the Copyright Act, 1957, which provides for a statutory licensing scheme, whereby any ‘broadcasting organization’ desirous of ‘communicating to the public’ any sound recording can obtain a statutory license to do so provided they pay royalty rates to the copyright owners at rates fixed by the Intellectual Property Law Board.

Tips Industries Ltd (Plaintiff) is an Indian music label that exercises copyright over a significant music repository that, in 2016, granted Wynk Music Ltd (Defendant) a license to access this music repository. At the expiry of the said license, both parties attempted to renegotiate the licensing conditions. Still, they failed to do so; hence, Wynk took refuge by invoking Section 31D of the Copyright Act. Tips challenged Wynk’s invocation of Section 31D and prosecuted Wynk according to Section 14(1)(e) for breach of their exclusive sound recording rights.

After hearing the contentions of both parties, the Bombay High Court found Wynk guilty of direct infringement on two counts – 1. To offer the copyrighted work under section 14(1) (e) (ii), which allowed the users to download and listen to the plaintiff’s work offline, and 2. Under section 14(1) (e) (iii) for communicating the plaintiff’s works to the users via their streaming service.

In addition to that, the Bombay High Court sought this opportunity to clear out the air regarding the ambiguity that existed concerning online streaming services falling within the scope of Section 31D:

1. Under Section 31D of the Copyright Act, the’ Download / Purchase ‘ of copyrighted works is not covered.

Wynk Music allowed the users to download and store copyrighted music for unlimited future use, which is instituted to be a ‘sale’ and not ‘communication made to the public,’ which constitutes a ‘broadcast’ for Section 31D. Hence, there is no claim for a statutory license for using such copyrighted work by Wynk Music.

2. The application of Section 31D of the Copyright Act does not include Internet broadcasting.

The defendant’s case was based primarily on the presumption that Section 31D covered Internet streaming services under’ radio broadcasting’ as described in a 2016 DPIIT office circular, given that’ radio broadcasting’ included’ internet broadcasting’ under Section 31D.

The Court had an opposing view which resulted in the rejection of the interpretation put forth by the defendant.

The Court found Section 31D to be an exception to copyright, which should only be strictly interpreted. Upon careful examination of the statutory scheme of 31D and the rules accompanying it, it becomes apparent that statutory licensing was intended only to cover radio and television broadcasting and not internet broadcasting. After examining the history associated with Section 31D, the Court derived that, despite the global existence of internet streaming services when the Section was inserted through an Amendment Act of 2012, the legislation, even though aware of it, omitted to include internet streaming services from the ambit of Section 31D.

In addition, the memorandum presented by the defendant does not contain any additional weightage of their claim as a memorandum only acts as ‘guidelines’ and lacks statutory authority and therefore has no influence to the extent of their claim.

The judgment was passed in favor of the plaintiff, and the Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction, having regard to the reality that they had made a prima facie case, and would suffer irreparable harm in the way of lost revenue.

3. Raj Rewal v Union of India &Ors

Whether an Architect, as the creator and legally the ‘author’ of a structure, has a right vested in him to object to such modification or demolition of their work by the owner of the building?

Background: The dispute centers around section 57 of the Copyright Act 1957, under which the plaintiff has filed for a mandatory injunction to reinstate the building according to the original plans. Section 57 of the Copyright Act 1957 provides the author with special rights called ‘moral rights,’ which exists with the author of the work over and above the economic rights of others.

The present case concerns Mr. Raj Rewal, who designed and Mr. Mahendra Raj, who was the structural designer of the Hall of Nations building. The said building was hailed as an icon of modernist Indian architecture and was erected on the Pragati Maidan grounds in New Delhi. The ITPO, in 2016, proposed to demolish the Hall of Nations complex to build an ‘Integrated Exhibition cum Convention Centre.’ Despite several attempts made by Plaintiff to protect the building from demolition, it resulted in what ITPO desired. Post demolition of the building, Plaintiff instituted a suit against the actions of ITPO by claiming that the acts of demolition had derogated Plaintiff’s special rights under Section 57.

Rejecting the plaintiff’s claims, the Court framed the issue as a conflict of two different rights: the architect’s rights under Section 57 and the landowner’s rights to practice acts about their property.

The Court observed that the plaintiff, in this case, cannot be allowed to prevent the demolition of the building by the defendant as it would, in turn, amount to a restriction of the defendant’s right to practice their control over their property and land which is provided to them under Article 300A which is a constitutional right which prevails over the statutory rights of the plaintiff which they claim to exist under Section 57 of Copyright Act, 1957.

The Court further states that the author’s right under Section 57 to prohibit ‘distortion, mutilation or modification of his work does not permit an author to prevent the destruction of their work since “that what cannot be viewed, seen, heard or felt, cannot be imperfect and cannot affect the honor or reputation of the author.”

Therefore, the extent to which the right vested in the architect extends is to prevent the building owner from refraining from making changes in the design made by the architect and passing it off as if the architect made the design.

Further, the Court also relied upon Section 52(1)(x), an exception to the architect’s copyright. The Court reasoned that the ‘reconstruction’ envisaged under Section 52(1)(x) could only occur if the building had already been demolished. Noting that the Copyright Act must be read harmoniously, the Court stated that Section 57 could not reasonably contemplate the right to object to demolishing a building.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the suit due to a lack of cause of action against the demolition of the Hall of Nations.

4. YRF v Sri Sai Ganesh Productions

Whether copyright can exist in a cinematography film independent of the underlying works that it is comprised of? 2. Does the expression under section 14 to ‘make a copy of the film’ mean making a physical copy only? And between the two films, is there a substantial and material similarity?

A copyright infringement suit was filed against Sri Sai Ganesh Productions &Ors by Yash Raj Films Pvt Ltd on the grounds that it blatantly copied the movie Band Baja Baarat produced under the YRF banner and producing Jabardasht which showcased substantial and material similarities in terms of theme, concept, plot, character, sketches, story, script, form and expression amongst other things.

The Court, while determining the first issue, relied on the judgment handed down by the Delhi High Court in the case of MRF Limited v. Metro Tyres Ltd, in which the Court held that copyright exists in the ‘cinematographic film’ independent from other underlying works that come together to constitute it and that there is a requirement of originality to exist in ‘cinematographic films’ which can be read into from Section 13(1)(b) of the Copyright Act, 1957 through Sections 13(3)(a) and 2(d) of the said Act even though it has not been explicitly mentioned.

The Court, while determining the second issue, held that the expression ‘to make a copy of the film’ provided in Section 14(d)(i) of the said Act does not simply mean creating a physical copy of the film by process of duplication. Furthermore, as the movie are protected just like original works , the Court extended the test of originality set out in the case of R.G Anand v. Deluxe Films to distinguish between the two films based on ‘substance, foundation, and kernal’ and understand the viewpoint of an average moviegoer as to whether they would have an unmistakable impression that one work was a copy of the other.

In the instant case, the Court found that the defendants had blatantly copied the plaintiff’s film’s fundamental, essential, and distinctive features.

5. UTV Software Communication Ltd., v.1337X.TO and Ors

How should the Court deal with the hydra-headed ‘Rogue Websites’ which, on being blocked, eventually multiply and resurface as redirect or mirror or alphanumeric websites?

UTV Software Communications Ltd (Plaintiff)., is one such company engaged in creating, producing, and distributing cinematographic content worldwide. The plaintiff has brought a suit against thirty identified websites , multiple John Doe defendants, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, the Dept of Telecom, and various ISPs. The plaintiff’s contention was based on the fact that the defendant’s websites host and provide access to their copyrighted content which infringes their rights derived from the Copyright Act 1957.

The plaintiffs provided access to a sample of such infringing content as evidence that the websites were primarily engaging in online piracy. Most websites did not respond to the summons because they were hosted outside India. Due to that, an amicus curia was appointed in their place as the issue was about to be a question of law of general public importance.

The most notable contribution this case made was that it introduced a new procedure to extend website blocking injunctions beyond those specified in the court order but also to those websites which are ‘mirror/alphanumeric/redirect’ websites created after the Court already passed the injunction order. This extension was termed a ‘dynamic injunction.’ Singapore High Court’s decision in Disney v M1 was referred by the High Court of Delhi while deciding on the issue where their Court introduced the concept of ‘dynamic injunction’ whereby a plaintiff could file an additional affidavit stating to the Court why a new website fell within the purview of an existing blocking order and forwarding the same to an ISP, which could dispute the merits of the blocking order. This process would help curtail piracy by such ‘Rogue Websites’ and reduce the burden on the copyright owners to go through the challenging route of litigation over and again.

Most Viewed Posts

• Patent Filing Procedure and Process in India – An Exclusive Guide
• 5 Step Trademark Registration Process in India
• What is Trademark and Types of Trademarks
• Understand Trademark Application Status [The Definitive Guide]
• Trademark Certificate in India

Recent Posts

Get in touch, related posts.

Trademark dilution is like death by a thousand cuts, and it is crucial to prevent the first cut. Apple’s smart…

Intellectual property transforms knowledge into an economic result by interacting with legal and economic forces in the market. It includes…

Copyrightability of Prompts Prompt engineering is recognized as essential for harnessing the full potential of generative AI technologies, as it…

• Financial Information
• Our History
• Our Leadership
• The Casey Philanthropies
• Workforce Composition
• Child Welfare
• Community Change
• Economic Opportunity
• Equity and Inclusion
• Evidence-Based Practice
• Impact Investments
• Juvenile Justice
• KIDS COUNT and Policy Reform
• Leadership Development
• Research and Evidence
• Child Poverty
• Foster Care
• Juvenile Probation
• Kinship Care
• Racial Equity and Inclusion
• Two-Generation Approaches
• See All Other Topics
• Publications
• KIDS COUNT Data Book
• KIDS COUNT Data Center

Case Studies Show Positive Youth Development Empowers Young Workers

A new Child Trends series explores how employ­ers can use pos­i­tive youth devel­op­ment prac­tices to bet­ter sup­port young workers.

Com­prised of three case stud­ies, the series details promis­ing prac­tices for ensur­ing young peo­ple suc­ceed in the work­place . They draw on insights from focus groups at Gen­er­a­tion Work sites in Chica­go, Illi­nois, and Birm­ing­ham, Alaba­ma, as well as inter­views with work­force devel­op­ment practitioners.

“ Young adults are an inte­gral part of America’s work­force, and employ­ers play an impor­tant role in their suc­cess,” said Rani­ta Jain , a senior asso­ciate with the Annie E. Casey Foun­da­tion. ​ “ Using direct input from employ­ers and young adults, Child Trends has shared valu­able rec­om­men­da­tions for cre­at­ing work­places where young peo­ple can learn, grow and thrive.”

Child Trends is a key part­ner in the Foundation’s Gen­er­a­tion Work ini­tia­tive , which part­ners with employ­ers to con­nect young adults — espe­cial­ly young peo­ple of col­or and those from low-income fam­i­lies — with sta­ble jobs.

Young Adult Work­ers’ Pro­fes­sion­al Development

Promis­ing Prac­tices for Incor­po­rat­ing Pos­i­tive Youth Devel­op­ment Into Young Adult Work­ers’ Pro­fes­sion­al Devel­op­ment rec­om­mends four pro­fes­sion­al devel­op­ment strate­gies that incor­po­rate pos­i­tive youth devel­op­ment principles.

• Cre­ate a struc­tured, sup­port­ive and safe envi­ron­ment. By cre­at­ing work­places where young adults can ask ques­tions and take respon­si­bil­i­ty for their train­ing and work, employ­ers fos­ter a sense of belong­ing and commitment.
• Ensure man­agers and young adults work togeth­er toward shared goals. This includes hav­ing man­agers set clear pro­fes­sion­al goals with their young employ­ees and ensur­ing man­agers meet with them through­out the year to help them accom­plish those goals.
• Pro­vide young work­ers with inter­nal and exter­nal train­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties. Inter­nal­ly, employ­ers can con­nect young peo­ple to on-the-job train­ing and work­shops that help them build impor­tant skills and gain valu­able expe­ri­ence. Exter­nal train­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties from a third par­ty or post­sec­ondary insti­tu­tion help mold young peo­ple into valu­able long-term employees.
• Estab­lish clear path­ways and process­es for pro­mo­tion. Employ­ers with trans­par­ent and well-defined poli­cies for advance­ment cre­ate trust and moti­va­tion among their young employees.

Young Adult Work­er Voice

Promis­ing Prac­tices for Incor­po­rat­ing Pos­i­tive Youth Devel­op­ment Into Young Adult Work­er Voice Ini­tia­tives out­lines three ways employ­ers can seek out and incor­po­rate young adults’ feedback.

• Nor­mal­ize col­lect­ing feed­back as a part of day-to-day oper­a­tions. Solic­it thoughts from each team mem­ber — includ­ing staff who are just begin­ning their careers — and ensure feed­back is col­lect­ed at des­ig­nat­ed inter­vals dur­ing projects.
• Rec­og­nize young work­ers for their con­tri­bu­tions. Pub­licly acknowl­edge and reward good ideas or help­ful suggestions.
• Posi­tion lead­er­ship and man­age­ment to pro­vide feed­back to work­ers ear­ly in their careers. This empow­ers young work­ers to speak out when issues arise and pro­vides them with coach­ing and men­tor­ing that will ben­e­fit their careers in the long term.

Young Adult Work­er Supervision

Promis­ing Prac­tices for Incor­po­rat­ing Pos­i­tive Youth Devel­op­ment Into Super­vi­sion of Young Adult Work­ers urges work­force prac­ti­tion­ers to lever­age their unique under­stand­ing of super­vi­sion struc­tures to encour­age employ­ers to adopt prac­tices that build on young adults’ strengths. This case study high­lights four employ­er super­vi­sion prac­tices that can enrich young work­ers’ expe­ri­ences on the job.

• Set clear expec­ta­tions for young work­ers. Out­line expec­ta­tions as ear­ly as the first job inter­view and ini­tial onboard­ing to devel­op a shared under­stand­ing of work respon­si­bil­i­ties. When employ­ers find that young work­ers are strug­gling with work-relat­ed duties, they can iden­ti­fy ways to sup­port workers.
• Get to know younger employ­ees as peo­ple. Under­stand young peo­ple’s goals, inter­ests, strengths and per­son­al­i­ties and treat them as val­ued team members.
• Equip man­agers with what they need to be good man­agers. Employ­ers can pro­vide for­mal man­age­ment train­ing on top­ics rang­ing from racial equi­ty and inclu­sion to goal set­ting. Train man­agers to cre­ate envi­ron­ments where young work­ers feel comfortable.
• Encour­age pro­fes­sion­al rela­tion­ships with man­age­ment-lev­el staff. By estab­lish­ing rela­tion­ships between young work­ers and mul­ti­ple man­agers or men­tors, employ­ers can ensure young team mem­bers are heard and sup­port­ed. In turn, man­agers bet­ter under­stand the needs of younger employees.

Learn more about pos­i­tive youth devel­op­ment approaches

This post is related to:

• Frontline Practice
• Generation Z
• Positive Youth Development
• Workforce Development
• Youth and Young Adult Employment

Popular Posts

View all blog posts    |    Browse Topics

blog   |   January 12, 2021

What Are the Core Characteristics of Generation Z?

blog   |   June 3, 2021

Defining LGBTQ Terms and Concepts

blog   |   August 1, 2022

Child Well-Being in Single-Parent Families

Subscribe to our newsletter to get our data, reports and news in your inbox.

• DOI: 10.55041/ijsrem28211
• Corpus ID: 267048425

A Case Study on the Impact of Brand Image on Customer Buying Behaviour with Special Reference to Nilgiris Supermarket in Mangalore

• Harish S. Pai
• Published in INTERANTIONAL JOURNAL OF… 15 January 2024

Tables from this paper

2 References

How brands become icons: the principles of cultural branding, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

‘Table 17’ Off Broadway Review: A Case Study in How to Steal a Show From the Leads

The featured actor Michael Rishawn makes a new rom-com by Douglas Lyons worth seeing

“Never work with animals or children.”

W.C. Fields delivered those words of wisdom to adult actors, and if the great screen comic were alive today, he might add to that short list of taboos a young actor’s name: Michael Rishawn. He walks away with the new Douglas Lyons comedy “Table 17” even though he’s a supporting player. The play had its world premiere Friday at MCC Theater.

Rishawn’s achievement is even greater when you consider that he’s on stage a lot with Kara Young, a veteran scene-stealer who recently won a Tony for her spectacularly insane performance in “Purlie Victorious” on Broadway last season.

Young and Biko Eisen-Martin play extranged lovers in “Table 17” who are about to meet again for a date that’s really not a date. When we first meet them separately, Young’s Jada worries about wearing the right outfit. Eisen-Martin’s Dallas repeats how Holly Hunter applied body fragrance in “Broadcast News.” These two opening vignettes are fun in a “Same Time, Next Year” sort of way that hasn’t been seen on stage, especially an Off Broadway stage, in decades.

Then Rishawn shows up. He’s the lucky actor who not only gets to play three featured roles but make several costume changes; the stunning outfits are by Devario D. Simmons. Rishawn plays the gay maître-d at a restaurant where Jada and Dallas are about to appear. The word “pissy” doesn’t begin to describe his portrayal. He follows that later in “Table 17” by playing a stud of a bartender and then a flight attendant whose major attribute is that he’s not gay, and when he opens his shirt, his pecs are D cup plus. Only this flight attendant character really figures into the plot, which gives the full trajectory of Jada and Dallas’ messy love affair.

When Rishawn is off the stage, you wait for him to return. The more we see of Jada and Dallas, the less we want to. Their relationship features very stale problems having to do with infidelity and career ambitions. The more the flight attendant becomes part of that relationship’s demise, even the talented Rishawn can’t keep from getting bogged down in the suds of a rom-com that turns into pure soap opera.

Lyons also wrote “Chicken & Biscuits.” In my review of that 2022 Broadway comedy, I wrote: “Among the heart-felt confessions of disinheritance and eating disorders, there’s a chat about why calling a homosexual man ‘a white boy’ is an act of grace.”

Lyons has more interesting things to say about gays in “Table 17.” With his gay maître-d character, he equates homosexuality with inherent loneliness. My suggestion to this tragically single restaurant host is simple: when Rishawn plays gay, he should take a tip from the flight-attendant side of his brain and show off those cut abs and enormous chest as often as possible. He will be lonely no more.

Zhailon Levingston directs.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• International
• Education Jobs
• Schools directory
• Resources Education Jobs Schools directory News Search

Edexcel A Level Business Case Studies 1.1.2 Market research

Subject: Business and finance

Age range: 16+

Resource type: Worksheet/Activity

Last updated

7 September 2024

• Share through email
• Share through twitter
• Share through linkedin
• Share through facebook
• Share through pinterest

A series of 5 case studies for Edexcel A Level Business studies 1.1.2 Market research covering: a) Product and market orientation b) Primary and secondary market research data (quantitative and qualitative) used to: o identify and anticipate customer needs and wants o quantify likely demand o gain insight into consumer behaviour c) Limitations of market research, sample size and bias d) Use of ICT to support market research: o websites o social networking o databases e) Market segmentation

Businesses included are: Unilever McDonald’s Coca-Cola Nike Apple

Case studies include key points for discussion, markscheme and answer structure following the PeCAN-PiE and AJIM models.

Tes paid licence How can I reuse this?

Your rating is required to reflect your happiness.

It's good to leave some feedback.

Something went wrong, please try again later.

This resource hasn't been reviewed yet

To ensure quality for our reviews, only customers who have purchased this resource can review it

Report this resource to let us know if it violates our terms and conditions. Our customer service team will review your report and will be in touch.

Not quite what you were looking for? Search by keyword to find the right resource: