Copyright Law

Subscribe to Copyright Law via RSS

By Scott Hervey

Just how valuable are baseball statistics? Apparently very valuable. In fact, baseball statistics are so valuable that CBC Distribution and Marketing, which has run the CDM Fantasy Sports leagues since 1992, has decided to sue Major League Baseball and challenge its copyright claim over player statistics. CBC agues that baseball statistics become historical facts as soon as a game is over, and that it shouldn’t have to pay for the right to use them. Major League Baseball claims that intellectual property law makes it illegal for fantasy leagues to commercially exploit the statistical profiles of its players.
Continue Reading Fantasy Sports League Brings On the Heat In Challenging MLB’s Ownership Of Player Statistics

By Scott Hervey

Intend to infringe – go to jail. That’s what the United States Attorney General proposed at a recent anti-piracy summit hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. United States attorney general Alberto Gonzales said the Department of Justice recently submitted to Congress the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2005 aimed at toughening up intellectual-property enforcement.
Continue Reading Intend To Infringe = Go To Jail

By Julie Garcia

Indemnification is generally a subject that is important, yet easily overlooked during business transaction negotiations. Although the scope and purpose of the indemnification can take on many different appearances, the underlying theme always remains the same, who will be held liable in the event that a problem arises. Once the parameters of the indemnification are established between the parties, there are a number of logistical details that should be considered which may prove to be important in the event indemnification is sought at a future time by one of the parties. Companies that own or license intellectual property generally focus on the scope of the indemnification, which may include infringement and ownership issues. The process by which one party may assert a right for indemnification and the process by which any defense will be conducted should be carefully considered by the parties and incorporated into the agreement between the parties.
Continue Reading The Ins and Outs of Indemnification

By Scott Hervey

On June 27, 2005, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in MGM v. Grokster.#160 That case involved an appeal from the Ninth Circuit by MGM, various record labels and other content owners of an adverse decision in their attempt to hold Grokster and other peer-to-peer network companies liable for copyright infringement.#160 MGM and the other content owners had initially filed a lawsuit against Grokster and other peer-to-peer network technology companies to hold them liable for damages resulting from their supplying the technology that enabled users to trade online copyrighted works.#160 The Ninth Circuit, upholding the District Court’s finding, held that the technology companies could not be held either vicariously liable or liable for contributory copyright infringement.#160 In coming to its conclusion, the Ninth Circuit interpreted the Sony v. Betamax case in holding that the distribution of a commercial product capable of substantial noninfringing uses could not give rise to contributory liability for infringement unless the distributor had actual knowledge of specific instances of infringement and failed to act on that knowledge.#160 Because the Ninth Circuit found the technology company’s software to be capable of substantial noninfringing uses and because respondents had no actual knowledge of infringement resulting from the software’s decentralized architecture, the court held that they were not liable.#160 (The architecture of the defendant’s file trading network is an open network.#160 That is, it does not have a central server like the old Napster network but rather uses nodes and supernodes; computer systems that are owned by users of the software and have no relationship to the defendants.)#160 The Ninth Circuit also held that the defendants did not materially contribute to their user’s infringement because the users themselves searched for, retrieved and stored the infringing files, with no involvement by respondents beyond providing the software in the first place.#160 Finally, the court held that the defendants could not be held liable under a vicarious infringement theory because the defendants did not monitor or control the software use and had no agreed upon right or current ability to supervise its use and had no independent duty to police infringement

Continue Reading The Grokster Decision- What Does It Really Mean?