Justia Copyright Opinion Summaries

Washington Shoe brought suit against A-Z for, among other things, copyright infringement. At issue was whether A-Z, an Arkansas retailer, was subject to personal jurisdiction in Washington. The district court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that Washington Shoe presented evidence that A-Z engaged in intentional acts that willfully infringed its copyright, knowing that it would adversely impact Washington Shoe in the state of Washington, and knew or should have known both about the existence of the copyright and the forum. Thus, A-Z's intentional acts were expressly aimed at Washington Shoe in Washington and the harm was felt in Washington. The district court therefore erred in dismissing the action. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Washington Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods Inc." on Justia Law

An episode of the animated television show, South Park, entitled “Canada On Strike,” satirized the 2007-2008 Writers’ Guild of America strike, popular viral videos, and the difficulty of monetizing Internet fame. In the episode, characters create a video that is a parody of the real world viral video, “What What (In The Butt),” Brownmark, the copyright holder for the original WWITB video, sued for copyright infringement under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C.101. SPDS claimed that the South Park version was fair use and attached the two works. Brownmark argued that the court could not consider fair use on a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the “well-reasoned and delightful opinion.” The court properly decided fair use on a motion; the only evidence needed to decide the issue were the original version of WWITB and the episode at issue. Under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine, reliance on the attached works did not violate Rule 12(d); if a plaintiff mentions a document in his complaint, the defendant may then submit the document to the court without converting defendant’s 12(b)(6) motion to a motion for summary judgment. View "Brownmark Films, LLC v. Comedy Partners" on Justia Law

Alpha sued defendants, foreign corporations, alleging that defendants conspired to steal its tire blueprints, produce infringing tires, and sell them to entities that had formerly purchased products from Alpha. A jury found in favor of Alpha on all claims and the district court upheld the damages award against defendants' post-trial challenges. Defendants subsequently appealed, contesting the verdict and the district court's exercise of personal jurisdiction. The court initially held that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over defendants. The court affirmed the district court's judgment that defendants were liable to Alpha under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and for conversion under Virginia law, but the court dismissed the remaining theories of liability submitted to the jury. Accordingly, the court affirmed the jury's damages award. Finally, the court vacated the district court's award of attorneys' fees. View "Tire Engineering and Distribution, LLC. v. Shandong Linglong Rubber Co." on Justia Law

Gaylord created “The Column,” sculptures representing soldiers that are the centerpiece of the Korean War Veterans' Memorial on the National Mall. The Postal Service issued a stamp commemorating the 50th anniversary of the armistice, with a photograph of The Column, licensed from a photographer. USPS issued roughly 86.8 million of the stamps, sold retail goods with the image, and licensed the image to retailers, without seeking Gaylord's permission. In 2006, Gaylord sued under 28 U.S.C. 1498(b) for copyright infringement. The Federal Circuit held that Gaylord owned the copyright and that USPS was liable for infringement, but remanded for determination of damages. The Court of Federal Claims rejected a claim for a 10 percent royalty on about $30.2 million in revenue allegedly generated by the infringing use, as well as a claim for prejudgment interest, finding that neither 28 U.S.C. 1498(b), which waives sovereign immunity for copyright infringement, nor the copyright infringement statute, 17 U.S.C. 504, authorizes a royalty-based award for copyright infringement and that the proper measure of damages was the reasonable value of a license, between $1,500 and $5,000. The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded for determination of market value of the infringing use and award of prejudgment interest.View "Gaylord v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2001 BPPR sought a declaratory judgment under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101 after several music publishing companies contacted BPPR claiming that they owned and were owed royalties on music compositions that BPPR had produced and distributed in a series of Christmas concerts. BPPR deposited royalties due on the compositions with the district court and asked the court to declare to whom the royalties were due and distribute them accordingly. LAMCO and others countersued for copyright infringement. The district court denied motions for summary judgment. Several co-defendants settled their claims among themselves and with BPPR. The jury found BPPR liable for infringement of two compositions owned by LAMCO and ACEMLA, and awarded $42,941.00 in compensatory damages. The court found ACEMLA liable for violating a GVLI copyright and ordered $43,405.35 in damages. The First Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. The district court properly found that the settlement agreement did not preclude future litigation of 12 undisputed LAMCO songs.View "Banco Popular de Puerto Rico v. Asociacion de Compositores" on Justia Law

RSA appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissal of RSA's claim for copyright infringement, related to pilot escort vehicle manuals, against Evergreen on the ground of laches. The court held that Evergreen did not willfully infringe upon RSA's copyright because it acted under color of title and in good faith. The court also held that the alleged future infringements named as the basis for the injunctive relief were identical to the original infringements and were thus barred by laches as well. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Evergreen Safety Council v. RSA Network Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, a computer programmer employed by Goldman Sachs & Co., appealed his conviction for stealing and transferring proprietary computer source code of Goldman's high frequency trading system in violation of the National Stolen Property Act (NSPA), 18 U.S.C. 2314, and the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (EEA), 18 U.S.C. 1832. Defendant argued, inter alia, that his conduct did not constitute an offense under either statute because: (1) the source code was not a "stolen" "good" within the meaning of the NSPA, and (2) the source code was not "related" to a product "produced for or placed in interstate or foreign commerce" within the meaning of the EEA. The court agreed and concluded that defendant's conduct did not constitute an offense under either the NSPA or the EEA, and that the indictment was therefore legally insufficient. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Aleynikov" on Justia Law

L.A. Printex appealed the district court's summary judgment order in favor of defendants in L.A. Printex's copyright infringement action. The parties' dispute stemmed from a floral design created by an L.A. Printex designer that later appeared on shirts bearing defendants' trademark. The court held that L.A. Printex raised a genuine dispute of material fact on access and substantial similarity. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, vacated the award of attorneys' fees, and remanded for further proceedings.View "L.A. Printex Industries, Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed from the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment to defendants on all claims of direct and secondary copyright infringement based on a finding that defendants were entitled to safe harbor protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. 512. The court held that, although the district court correctly held that the section 512(c) safe harbor required knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity, the court vacated the order granting summary judgment because a reasonable jury could find that YouTube had actual knowledge or awareness of specific infringing activity on its website. The court further held that the district court erred by interpreting the "right and ability to control" infringing activity to require "item-specific" knowledge. Finally, the court affirmed the district court's holding that three of the challenged YouTube software functions fell within the safe harbor for infringement that occurred "by reason of" storage at the direction of the user, and remanded for further fact-finding with respect to a fourth software function. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.View "Viacom International, Inc., et al. v. Youtube, Inc., et al.; The Football Assoc. Premier League Ltd., et al. v. Tur, et al." on Justia Law

LRK, an architect firm, brought this action for copyright infringement against a former client and his affiliated building companies (collectively, Bryan defendants). Lafayette and State Farm, insurers of Bryan's Cypress Lake Development, sought declaratory judgments that, by virtue of exclusions set forth in their respective insurance policies, they have no obligation to provide coverage or duty to defend in LRK's suit. LRK appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling that Lafayette and State Farm have no duty to provide coverage, and Lafayette and State Farm appealed the district court's summary judgment ruling that they have a duty to defend. The court concluded that the exclusions relied upon by the insurers did not preclude coverage of LRK's copyright infringement claim and therefore, that the insurers owed both coverage and defense under their respective policies. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and affirmed in part.View "Looney Ricks Kiss Architects v. Bryan, et al." on Justia Law