You searched for Copyright

Results for "Copyright"

Que sera, sera: No declaratory relief after songwriter’s heir terminated copyright assignments

by Taylor MacDonald | Jul 17, 2025 | Copyrights

Addressing the intersection of a trust beneficiary’s rights to royalties and an heir’s copyright termination rights under 17 U.S.C. § 203, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order dismissing the beneficiary’s request for declaratory relief for failure to state a claim. Tammy Livingston v. Jay Livingston Music, Inc. and Travilyn Livingston, Case No. 24-5263 (6th Cir. Jul. 7, 2025) (Readler, Siler, Clay, JJ.)

Jay Livingston was a prominent 20th century songwriter. In 1985, he established a family trust that granted the beneficiaries royalties from nearly 250 songs and transferred his reversionary copyright interests in the songs to the trust. The copyright interest was reversionary because in 1984, Livingston executed a contract that began assigning copyright interests in the songs to a company whose legal successor would become Jay Livingston Music. That contract laid the groundwork for successive agreements that would each transfer a specific song to the company. By 2000, Livingston had assigned his interests in each song to Jay Livingston Music.

In 2000, Livingston signed a second overarching contract, extending the company’s rights to the full duration of each song’s copyright protection. The songs’ copyrights expire around 2050. In 2003, after Livingston passed away, a California probate court ordered that the trust no longer held any rights in his copyright interests beyond the royalties.

In 2015, Travilyn Livingston (Livingston’s only child) terminated the assignment to Jay Livingston Music of 32 songs under § 203(a)(2)(B) of the Copyright Law, reverting all rights to Travilyn. Tammy Livingston, Travilyn’s daughter, sued Travilyn in 2022, requesting declaratory relief stating either that the termination notices Travilyn used were invalid or that Tammy remained entitled to royalties from the 32 songs under state law. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. Tammy appealed.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court. The Sixth Circuit considered whether Livingston executed the 2000 contract as an individual or a trustee and to what extent that affected the validity of the assignment extensions. The Court determined that the probate court’s 2003 order had preclusive effect and that Livingston had signed the 2000 contract in his individual capacity. Therefore, the company – not the trust – held the valid assignments in 2015 when Tammy terminated them.

Tammy argued that Travilyn could only terminate the assignments if they had been transferred to a third party in 1984. Tammy claimed that Travilyn did not own the company when the 1984 contract was executed and that Livingston thus granted the rights to himself as the owner of the company. The Sixth Circuit was unpersuaded by this argument because the 1984 agreement stated that Travilyn owned the company on the date of execution. Tammy next argued that the district court committed reversable error when it stated that Travilyn owned the company “sometime before” the 1984 contract’s execution rather than on the day, as the contract itself stated. The Court found that this misstatement did not rise to reversible error.

Finally, to support her [...]

Continue Reading

Supreme Court to consider whether ISPs can be liable for contributory copyright infringement

by Amol Parikh | Jul 10, 2025 | Cert Alert

The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to review whether an internet service provider (ISP) can be liable for copyright infringement for providing an internet connection that leads to piracy. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, Case No. 24-171 (Supr. Ct. June 30, 2025) (certiorari granted). The questions presented are:

Whether the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit erred in holding that a service provider can be held liable for “materially contributing” to copyright infringement merely because it knew that people were using certain accounts to infringe and did not terminate access without proof that the service provider affirmatively fostered infringement or otherwise intended to promote it.
Whether the Fourth Circuit erred in holding that mere knowledge of another’s direct infringement suffices to find willfulness under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c).

In Sony Music Entm’t., et al. v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., Case No. 21-1168 (4th Cir. Feb. 20, 2024), the Fourth Circuit upheld a jury verdict finding Cox liable for contributory copyright infringement, rejecting Cox’s arguments that its service was also used for lawful activity and that its contribution must amount to aiding and abetting the infringement. The Court, however, reversed the jury’s verdict of vicarious liability, finding that Cox did not profit from its subscribers’ acts of infringement and thus did not meet the legal prerequisite for that form of secondary liability.

Fair use or foul play? The AI fair use copyright line

by Jodi Benassi | Jul 2, 2025 | Copyrights

The US District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of an artificial intelligence (AI) company, finding that its use of lawfully acquired copyrighted materials for training and its digitization of acquired print works fell within the bounds of fair use. However, the district court explicitly rejected the AI company’s attempt to invoke fair use as a defense to rely on pirated copies of copyrighted works as lawful training data. Andrea Bartz, et al. v. Anthropic PBC, Case No. 24-CV-05417-WHA (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2025) (Alsup, J.)

Anthropic, an AI company, acquired more than seven million copyrighted books without authorization by downloading them from pirate websites. It also lawfully purchased print books, removed their bindings, scanned each page, and stored them in digitized, searchable files. The goal was twofold:

To create a central digital library intended, in Anthropic’s words, to contain “all the books in the world” and to be preserved indefinitely.
To use this library to train the large language models (LLMs) that power Anthropic’s AI assistant, Claude.

Each work selected for training the LLM was copied through four main stages:

Each selected book was copied from the library to create a working copy for training.
Each book was “cleaned” by removing low-value or repetitive content (e.g., footers).
Cleaned books were converted into “tokenized” versions by being simplified and split into short character sequences, then translated into numerical tokens using Anthropic’s custom dictionary. These tokens were repeatedly used in training, allowing the model to discover statistical relationships across massive text data.
Each fully trained LLM itself retained “compressed” copies of the books.

Once the LLM was trained, it did not output any of the books through Claude to the public. The company placed particular value on books with well-curated facts, structured analyses, and compelling narratives (i.e., works that reflected well-written creative expressions) because Claude’s users expected clear, accurate, and well-written responses to their questions.

Andrea Bartz, along with two other authors whose books were copied from pirated and purchased sources and used to train Claude, sued Anthropic for copyright infringement. In response, Anthropic filed an early motion for summary judgment on fair use only under Section 107 of the Copyright Act.

To assess the applicability of the fair use defense, the court separated and analyzed Anthropic’s actions across three distinct categories of use.

Transformative training (fair use)

The authors challenged only the inputs used to train the LLMs, not their outputs. The district court found that Anthropic’s use of copyrighted books to train its LLMs was a transformative use, comparable to how humans read and learn from texts and produce new, original writing. While the authors claimed that the LLMs memorized their creative expression, there was no evidence that Claude released infringing material to the public. The court concluded that using the works as training inputs – not for direct replication, but to enable the generation of new content – favored a finding of fair use.

Format-shifting copies (fair use)

[...]

Continue Reading

Running on Empty: ‘Stang’ With No Anthropomorphic Characteristics Isn’t Copyrightable Character

by Taylor MacDonald | Jun 5, 2025 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of copyright protection for a car that had a name but no anthropomorphic or protectable characteristics. Carroll Shelby Licensing, Inc. v. Denice Shakarian Halicki et al., Case No. 23-3731 (9th Cir. May 27, 2025) (Nguyen, Mendoza, JJ.; Kernodle Dist. J., sitting by designation).

In 2009, Denice Shakarian Halicki and Carroll Shelby Licensing entered into a settlement agreement resolving a lawsuit concerning Shelby’s alleged infringement of Halicki’s asserted copyright interest in a Ford Mustang known as “Eleanor,” which appeared in a series of films dating back to the 1970s. Under the agreement, Shelby, a custom car shop, was prohibited from producing GT-500E Ford Mustangs incorporating Eleanor’s distinctive hood or headlight design. Shortly thereafter, Shelby licensed Classic Recreations to manufacture “GT-500CR” Mustangs, a move Halicki viewed as a breach of the settlement agreement. Halicki contacted Classic Recreations and demanded it cease and desist in the production of the GT-500CRs.

Shelby filed a lawsuit alleging breach of the settlement agreement and seeking declaratory relief. Halicki counterclaimed for copyright infringement and breach of the agreement. Following a bench trial, the district court ruled in Shelby’s favor on both the breach and infringement claims but declined to grant declaratory relief. Shelby appealed.

The Ninth Circuit began by addressing whether “Eleanor” qualified for copyright protection as a character under the Copyright Act. Although the act does not explicitly list characters among the types of works it protects, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that certain characters may be entitled to such protection. The applicable standard, articulated in 2015 by the Ninth Circuit in DC Comics v. Towle, sets forth a three-pronged test, under which the character must:

Have “physical as well as conceptual qualities”
Be “sufficiently delineated to be recognizable as the same character whenever it appears” with “consistent, identifiable character traits and attributes”
Be “especially distinctive” and have “some unique elements of expression.”

The Ninth Circuit concluded that Eleanor failed to satisfy any of the three prongs of the Towle test. As to the first prong, the Court found that Eleanor functioned merely as a prop and lacked the anthropomorphized qualities or independent agency associated with protectable characters. Regarding the second prong, the Court noted that Eleanor’s appearance varied significantly across the films in terms of model, colors, and condition. Under the third prong, the Court found that Eleanor lacked the distinctiveness necessary to elevate it beyond the level of a generic sports car commonly featured in similar films. Thus, the Court concluded that Eleanor did not qualify as a character, let alone a copyrightable one.

The Ninth Circuit next turned to the parties’ settlement agreement. While California law permits the use of extrinsic evidence to aid in contract interpretation, the Court found the language sufficiently unambiguous to render such evidence unnecessary. Notably, the parties did not include “Eleanor” as a defined term in the agreement, and the term was used in varying contexts throughout the document, conveying different meanings [...]

Continue Reading

Copyright, AI, and Politics

by Paul Devinsky | May 22, 2025 | Copyrights

In early 2023, the US Copyright Office (CO) initiated an examination of copyright law and policy issues raised by artificial intelligence (AI), including the scope of copyright in AI-generated works and the use of copyrighted materials in AI training. Since then, the CO has issued the first two installments of a three-part report: part one on digital replicas, and part two on copyrightability.

On May 9, 2025, the CO released a pre-publication version of the third and final part of its report on Generative AI (GenAI) training. The report addresses stakeholder concerns and offers the CO’s interpretation of copyright’s fair use doctrine in the context of GenAI.

GenAI training involves using algorithms to train models on large datasets to generate new content. This process allows models to learn patterns and structures from existing data and then create new text, images, audio, or other forms of content. The use of copyrighted materials to train GenAI models raises complex copyright issues, particularly issues arising under the “fair use” doctrine. The key question is whether using copyrighted works to train AI without explicit permission from the rights holders is fair use and therefore not an infringement or whether such use violates copyright.

The 107-page report provides a thorough technical and legal overview and takes a carefully calculated approach responding to the legal issues underlying fair use in GenAI. The report suggests that each case is context specific and requires a thorough evaluation of the four factors outlined in Section 107 of the Copyright Act:

The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

With regard to the first factor, the report concludes that GenAI training run on large diverse datasets “will often be transformative.” However, the use of copyright-protected materials for AI model training alone is insufficient to justify fair use. The report states that “transformativeness is a matter of degree of the model and how it is deployed.”

The report notes that training a model is most transformative where “the purpose is to deploy it for research, or in a closed system that constrains it to a non-substitutive task,” as opposed to instances where the AI output closely tracks the creative intent of the input (e.g., generating art, music, or writing in a similar style or substance to the original source materials).

As to the second factor (commercial nature of the use), the report notes that a GenAI model is often the product of efforts undertaken by distinct and multiple actors, some of which are commercial entities and some of which are not, and that it is typically difficult to discern attribution and definitively determine that a model is the product of a commercial or a noncommercial [...]

Continue Reading

Human Authorship Required: AI Isn’t an Author Under Copyright Act

by Jodi Benassi | Mar 27, 2025 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a district court ruling that affirmed the US Copyright Office’s (CO) denial of a copyright application for artwork created by artificial intelligence (AI), reaffirming that human authorship is necessary for copyright registration. Thaler v. Perlmutter, Case No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 18, 2025) (Millett, Wilkins, Rogers, JJ.)

Stephen Thaler, PhD, created a generative AI system that he named the Creativity Machine. The machine created a picture that Thaler titled, “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” Thaler applied to the CO for copyright registration for the artwork, listing the Creativity Machine as the author and Thaler as the copyright owner.

The CO denied Thaler’s application because “a human being did not create the work.” Thaler twice sought reconsideration of the application, which the CO denied because the work lacked human authorship. Thaler subsequently sought review in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, which affirmed the CO’s denial of registration. The district court concluded that “[h]uman authorship is a bedrock requirement of copyright.” Thaler appealed.

The DC Circuit reaffirmed that the Creativity Machine could not be considered the author of a copyrighted work. The Copyright Act of 1976 mandates that to be eligible for copyright, a work must be initially authored by a human being. The Court highlighted key provisions of the Copyright Act that only make sense if “author” is interpreted as referring to a human being. For instance:

A copyright is a property right that immediately vests in the author. Since AI cannot own property, it cannot hold copyright.
Copyright protection lasts for the author’s lifetime, but machines do not have lifespans.
Copyright is inheritable, but machines have no surviving spouses or heirs.
Transferring a copyright requires a signature, and machines cannot provide signatures.
Authors of unpublished works are protected regardless of their nationality or domicile, yet machines do not have a domicile or national identity.
Authors have intentions, but machines lack consciousness and cannot form intentions.

The DC Circuit concluded that the statutory provisions, as a whole, make human activity a necessary condition for authorship under the Copyright Act.

The DC Circuit noted that the human authorship requirement is not new, referencing multiple judicial decisions, including those from the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, where appellate courts have consistently ruled that authors must be human.

Practice Note: Only humans, not their tools, can author copyrightable works of art. Images autonomously generated are not eligible for copyright. However, works created by humans who used AI are eligible for copyright depending on the circumstances, how the AI tool operates, and to what degree the AI tool was used to create the final work. Authors whose works are assisted by AI should seek advice of counsel to determine whether their works are copyrightable.

Religious Texts, Copyrights, and Estate Law: A Case of Strange Bedfellows

by Ashley K. Justice | Feb 13, 2025 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a case involving a deceased religious leader who owned the copyrights to works reflecting his teachings. The Court found that the copyrighted works were not works for hire under copyright law, that the leader therefore had the right to license his copyrights, and that the subsequent owner of the copyrights (not a statutory heir) also had the right to terminate licenses. Aquarian Foundation, Inc. v. Bruce Kimberley Lowndes, Case No. 22-35704 (9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2025) (Hawkins, McKeown, de Alba, JJ.)

Aquarian Foundation is a nonprofit religious organization founded by Keith Milton Rhinehart. During his time as the leader of Aquarian, Rhinehart copyrighted his spiritual teachings. An Aquarian member, Bruce Lowndes, claimed that he obtained a license from Rhinehart in 1985. Upon Rinehart’s death in 1999, he left his estate, including interests in copyrights, to Aquarian. In 2014, Aquarian discovered that Lowndes was uploading Rhinehart’s teachings online and sent Lowndes takedown requests pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In 2021, Aquarian sent Lowndes a letter terminating Lowndes’ license and sued Lowndes for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and false designation of origin.

After a bench trial, the district court concluded that Rhinehart’s works were not works for hire under either the 1909 or the 1976 Copyright Act, so Rhinehart had the authority to grant Lowndes an unrestricted license. The district court also found that Aquarian did not have the authority to terminate the license as a nonstatutory heir and should have given Lowndes two years notice. The district court denied attorneys’ fees. Both parties appealed the district court’s ruling on ownership and attorneys’ fees, and Aquarian appealed the ruling on its lack of authority to terminate the license.

The Ninth Circuit, finding no clear error, affirmed the district court’s holding that Rhinehart’s works were not works for hire under either the 1909 or the 1976 Copyright Act. Under the 1909 Act’s “instance and expense” test, the Court found that “the creation and maintenance of the works was Rhinehart’s purview, and not the church’s domain.” Under the 1976 Act, which applies agency law, the Court similarly found that Rhinehart’s creation of the works was outside the scope of his employment as Aquarian’s president and secretary. Therefore, under either act, Rhinehart’s works were not works for hire, making Rhinehart the copyright owner. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that as owner, Rhinehart had authority to grant the license to Lowndes. The Court also found that Lowndes’ license to “use copyrighted materials ‘without restriction’” referenced “a coming World Wide Network,” so Lowndes did not breach the license by posting the works online.

The Ninth Circuit also affirmed that the testamentary transfer of copyrights to Aquarian was permitted by both the 1909 and 1976 Copyright Acts: “Both the 1909 and 1976 Copyright Acts allow for the transfer of a copyright by will. 17 U.S.C. § 42 (repealed) (providing that copyrights ‘may be bequeathed by will’); [...]

Continue Reading

Focus on Funk: 40-Year-Old Copyright Claim Is Time-Barred

by Karen Gover | Dec 12, 2024 | Copyrights

In a summary order, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s orders in a case involving an ownership dispute over the copyrights to certain compositions by Parliament-Funkadelic bandleader George Clinton, finding that the claim was time-barred based on an admission that the claim was first discovered 40 years ago. Bridgeport Music Inc., et al. v. TufAmerica Inc., et al., Case No. 23-7386-cv (2d Cir. Dec. 2, 2024) (Carney, Bianco, Nardini, JJ.) (nonprecedential).

LeBaron Taylor was a Detroit-based music producer, disc jockey, and record company executive. Clinton recorded music for Taylor’s record label, Revilot Records, before it went bankrupt in the late 1960s. After Revilot’s bankruptcy, Clinton began recording music for Westbound Records, including re-recording some of the compositions that he had previously recorded with Revilot. TufAmerica Inc. (d/b/a Tuff City Records) and Kay Lovelace Taylor, LeBaron Taylor’s widow, are Clinton’s successors-in-interest.

In December 2017, TufAmerica sent a letter to Bridgeport Music and Westbound Records stating that TufAmerica was the rightful owner of the copyrights to certain Clinton compositions and that Bridgeport had infringed on those copyrights. In January 2018, Bridgeport filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that it was the rightful owner of the compositions and thus had not committed copyright infringement. After the case was transferred from the Eastern District of Michigan to the Southern District of New York, TufAmerica filed an amended answer and asserted counterclaims seeking a declaratory judgment that it was the rightful owner of the compositions and alleging that Bridgeport had infringed the copyrights in those compositions.

Bridgeport moved for summary judgment on its affirmative claims and TufAmerica’s counterclaims. The district court found that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding ownership of the compositions, but it granted partial summary judgment in favor of Bridgeport as to TufAmerica’s infringement counterclaims. Bridgeport had submitted a series of agreements in which Clinton assigned ownership in the disputed compositions to Bridgeport Music and exclusive recording rights to Westbound Records, but in his deposition testimony Clinton said that he did not sign the agreements or does not remember signing them.

In its summary judgment response and counterstatement of material facts, TufAmerica admitted that Taylor worked as a disc jockey in the 1970s and played Bridgeport’s recordings of the Clinton compositions on the air. TufAmerica received no royalties. The district court found that TufAmerica’s claims accrued at the time Taylor was put on notice of the alleged exploitation of the work without receiving royalties and that the claims were therefore time-barred by the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations period. Because the ownership counterclaim was time-barred, the district court granted summary judgment to Bridgeport on the related counterclaims for infringement and damages since the infringement claim could not be properly adjudicated unless ownership was first determined. TufAmerica moved for reconsideration, which the district court denied while also granting the parties’ request to conditionally dismiss Bridgeport’s affirmative claims in the absence of any live dispute between the parties. TufAmerica appealed.

TufAmerica argued that its [...]

Continue Reading

Jurisdiction “Found”: Navigating E-Commerce Boundaries in Copyright Disputes

by Cecilia Choy, Ph.D. | Oct 24, 2024 | Copyrights

In a copyright case, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit determined that the district court had jurisdiction over two Chinese companies that consented to jurisdiction in any judicial district in which a third-party e-commerce company could be “found.” The Tenth Circuit concluded that whether an e-commerce company is “found” in a district for purposes of jurisdiction is determined based on whether its officers or agents carry out the company’s business there, not on the manner in which it does business. DP Creations, LLC v. Adolly.com, Case No. 23-4126 (10th Cir. Oct. 15, 2024) (Tymkovich, Bacharach, Carson, JJ.)

As background, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) “preserve[d] strong incentives for service providers and copyright owners to cooperate and detect and deal with copyright infringements that take place in the digital networked environment.” After a copyright owner notifies a service provider of an infringement, the service provider can avoid liability for a subscriber’s copyright infringement if the service provider expeditiously moves or disables access to the allegedly infringing material and notifies the subscriber of such actions taken. Under Section 512(g)(3)(D) of the DMCA, a subscriber with an address outside the United States may have the material replaced by submitting a written counter-notification to the service provider that includes a statement that the “subscriber consents to the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court . . . for any judicial district in which the service provider may be found.”

DP Creations, d/b/a Bountiful Baby, is a copyright owner for reborn doll sculptures. Bountiful Baby notified a third-party e-commerce company (service provider) that two Chinese companies (subscribers), including Adolly, were selling counterfeit copies of reborn dolls through the e-commerce company. The e-commerce company took down the infringing materials, and Adolly submitted counter-notifications, including consent to personal jurisdiction in “any judicial district in which [the e-commerce company] may be found and agreeing to accept service of process from” Bountiful Baby. Bountiful Baby subsequently filed a copyright infringement action in the District of Utah. After the Chinese companies failed to respond, the district court denied the motion for entry of default judgment against the defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction. In construing the scope of jurisdiction under § 512(g)(3)(D), the district court used Black’s Law Dictionary to understand the plain meaning of “found” and required Bountiful Baby to show that the e-commerce company did business in Utah such that it was subject to suit and service of process there. Bountiful Baby appealed.

Because § 512(g)(3)(D)’s phrase “may be found” is not defined in the statute, the Tenth Circuit (like the district court) undertook to construe the ordinary meaning of the phrase. The Court decided against using the definition found in Black’s to construe the meaning of “found” as it relates to service of process on corporations that are not a subscriber of the involved service provider. The Court concluded that in cases where the service provider is not a resident of the forum state and potentially not “at home” in the forum state, Black’s [...]

Continue Reading

Arguing Internet Availability to Establish Copyright Infringement Is Bananas

by Cecilia Choy, Ph.D. | Aug 29, 2024 | Copyrights

In an unpublished opinion, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s decision finding that a pro se Californian artist failed to establish that an Italian artist had reasonable opportunity to access the copyrighted work simply because it was available to view on the internet. Morford v. Cattelan, Case No. 23-12263 (11th Cir. Aug. 16, 2024) (Jordan, Pryor, Branch, JJ.) (per curiam).

A plaintiff alleging copyright infringement may show factual copying by either direct or indirect evidence showing “that the defendant had access to the copyrighted work and that there are probative similarities between the allegedly infringing work and the copyrighted work.” To do so, however, the copyright owner must establish a nexus between the work and the defendant’s alleged infringement. Mere access to a work disseminated in places or settings where the defendant may have come across it is not sufficient.

Joe Morford’s Banana and Orange and Maurizio Cattelan’s Comedian both “involve the application of duct tape to a banana against a flat surface” (see images below from the court decision’s appendix). Cattelan’s Comedian went viral and sold for more than $100,000 at Miami’s Art Basel. Morford claimed that Comedian was a copy. The district court found that Morford failed to show that Cattelan had reasonable opportunity to access Banana and Orange and thus could not establish a copyright claim. Morford appealed.

On appeal, Morford argued that because he could show striking similarity between Banana and Orange and Comedian, he was not required to proffer evidence of access to show copyright infringement. In the alternative, he argued that he could show substantial similarity and that Cattelan had reasonable opportunity to access Banana and Orange as it was widely disseminated and readily discoverable online.

The Eleventh Circuit explained that in circuits adopting a widespread dissemination standard, that standard requires showing that the work enjoyed “considerable success or publicity.” Morford showed that Banana and Orange was available on his public Facebook page for almost 10 years and featured on his YouTube channel and in a blog post, with views in more than 25 countries. But Banana and Orange’s availability on the internet, without more, was “too speculative to find a nexus” between Cattelan and Morford to satisfy the factual copying prong of a copyright infringement claim, according to the Court.

The Eleventh Circuit also found that Morford failed to meet the high burden of demonstrating that the original work and accused infringement were so strikingly similar as to establish copying. Such similarity exists if the similarity in appearance between the two works “is so great that [it] precludes the possibility of coincidence, independent creation or common source,” but identical expression does not necessarily constitute infringement. In this analysis, a court addresses the “uniqueness or complexity of the protected work as it bears on the likelihood of copying.” Morford argued that he [...]

Continue Reading

Older Posts »

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

Jodi Benassi

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS