Via the Susan Crawford blog and Corante. In 2005, in the Napster Investor case, Judge Marilyn Patel dismissed a plaintiff attempt to equate making files available (without proof of being downloaded) with an infringement of a copyholder’s exclusive right of distribution under the ART Act (Artists’ Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005). Under the Act, it is a criminal offense to “make available” public electronic files of prereleased material. Here is Judge Patel’s order (PDF). While an old item, I wanted to start the discussion because it will be coming up again over the next few months.
An independent maintenance and repair company is sued by a manufacturer of automated data storage machines alleging violation of copyright on software and misappropriation of trade secrets. The lower courts judgement in favor of plaintiff vacated. The defendant’s use of and copying and plaintiff’s software code within the protection of section 117(c) of the Copyright Act. – Storage Tech. Corp. v. Custom Hardware, 421 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The writers of an un-produced film sued the producers of Terminator II for breach of screenplay copyright. Ct. ruled that, although the present claims and claims asserted by screenplay writer in prior suit were idential, there was no privity between the parties so the claim was not collaterally estopped. – Kourtis v. Cameron, 419 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2005).
Jury’s judgment in favor of plaintiff reversed and remanded. Defendant could not meet the requirement that all copyright trandfers be in writing and signed by the transferor. – Lyrick Studios, Inc. v. Big Idea Prod., 420 F.3d 388 (5th Cir. 2005).
Because architecture firm did not register their design, a requirement to bring an infringement action, the 10th Cir. affirmed the dismissal of the case. Copyright was not considered registered until Copyright Office approves or rejects application. – La Resolana Architects, PA v. Clay Realtors, 416 F.3d 1195 (10th Cir. 2005).
Ct. of App. upheald a lower courts bench trial ruling that:
the manufacturer of boat had not revised its design enouth, i.e. was not a “substantial revision,” and so was not entitled to protection under the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act (VHDPA), 17 U.S.C. section 1303); cancellation of plaintiff’s vessel hull design registration is affirmed with attorney’s fees granted. – Maverick Boat Co. v. Am. Marine Holdings, Inc., 418 F.3d 1186 (11th Cir. 2005).
Affirmed: summary judgement in favor of defendant because plaintiff did not own a valid copyright on the clothing design at issue in the litigation; the designs were not copyrightable because there was no showing that they were marketable independent of their function as casino uniforms. – Galiano v. Harrah’s Operating Co., 416 F.3d 411 (5th Cir. 2005).