Full Text Search
FREE Case Summary Blogs
FREE Case Summary Newsletters
FREE Case Summary RSS Feeds
Staff Favorites
Schrock v. Learning Curve Int'l, Inc. (U.S. 7th Cir.) - In plaintiff's copyright infringement action against defendant who had hired him to take photos of the "Thomas & Friends" toy train characters for use in promotions, district court's dismissal of his complaint is reversed where: 1) the photos qualify for the limited derivative-work copyright provided by section 103(b) as plaintiff's artistic and technical choices combine to create a two-dimensional image that is subtly but nonetheless sufficiently his own; and 2) district court erred in concluding that plaintiff needed defendant's permission to copyright the photos, as there is nothing in the Copyright Act requiring the author of a derivative work to obtain permission to copyright his work from the owner of the copyright in the underlying work.
US v. Hinkson (U.S. 9th Cir.) - The Ninth Circuit re-states its "abuse of discretion" standard of review, which now requires it to: 1) consider whether the district court identified the correct legal standard for decision of the issue before it; and 2) determine whether the district court's findings of fact, and its application of those findings of fact to the correct legal standard, were illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that could be drawn from facts in the record. Defendant's murder for hire conviction is affirmed where, applying the re-stated standard, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a new trial.
Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. UMG Recordings, Inc. (U.S. 6th Cir.) - In plaintiff's copyright-infringement case against defendant for infringement of its copyright on George Clinton's song, based on the use of the phrase "Bow wow wow, yippie yo, yippie yea", district court's finding that defendant willfully infringed plaintiff's rights in the song and an award of statutory damages of $88,980 are affirmed where: 1) the jury instructions were not erroneous as a matter of law; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give the instructions requested by the defendant.
Sign-up for FREE Newsletters»
Browse Opinion Summaries
By Court
By Company
By Legal Topic
Copyright © 2009 FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters business. All rights reserved.
|