You searched for Copyright appeals | Page 8 of 34

Results for "Copyright appeals"

“Lightly Sketched” Characters Not Copyrightable

by Cecilia Choy, PhD | Apr 2, 2020 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed that “lightly sketched anthropomorphized characters representing human emotions” were not copyrightable. Daniels v. Walt Disney Co., Case No. 18-55635 (9th Cir. Mar. 16, 2020) (McKeown, J.).

Denise Daniels created The Moodsters Company. The Moodsters were five named characters, each color-coded to an emotion. The Moodsters Company developed a pitchbook in 2005, a pilot episode for television in 2007, and toys and books of a second generation of The Moodsters by 2013. Daniels and The Moodsters Company also pitched The Moodsters to Disney. In 2010, Disney began developing a movie about five anthropomorphized emotions called Inside Out.

Daniels brought a claim of copyright infringement against Disney. After the district court granted Disney’s motion to dismiss, Daniels appealed.

(more…)

Lightbulb Moment: It’s Possible to Grant an Implied Copyright Sublicense

by Eleanor B. Atkins | Apr 2, 2020 | Copyrights

Addressing for the first time the issue of implied copyright sublicenses, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that where a copyright license provides an unrestricted right to grant sublicenses, a copyright licensee may do so impliedly and without express language. Photographic Illustrators Corp. v. Orgill, Case No. 19-1452 (1st Cir. Mar. 13, 2020) (Kayatta, J.).

(more…)

Ninth Circuit Shows Led Zeppelin a Whole Lotta Love in ‘Stairway’ Copyright Win

by Sarah Bro | Mar 25, 2020 | Copyrights

Ruling en banc, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated a 2016 jury verdict, finding that the rock band Led Zeppelin and the opening notes of its hit song “Stairway to Heaven” did not infringe the 1967 song “Taurus” by the band Spirit. Michael Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin et al., Case No. 16-56057 (9th Cir., March 9, 2020) (en banc) (McKeown, J.) (Bea and Ikuta, JJ., dissenting).

The en banc decision addressed a “litany of copyright issues”—the most critical being the interplay between the 1909 and 1976 Copyright Acts and the Court’s reversal of its own precedent in rejecting a doctrine occasionally referred to as the “inverse ratio rule”—when it concluded that, regardless of a copyrighted work’s fame, all plaintiffs must satisfy the same standard of proof in showing that an allegedly infringing work is substantially similar to the copyrighted work.

(more…)

Failure to Mitigate Not a Complete Defense to Statutory Damages Under Copyright or DMCA

by Sarah Bro | Jan 29, 2020 | Copyrights

On an issue of first impression in a copyright infringement dispute out of the Southern District of Texas, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit confirmed that failure to mitigate is not a complete defense to copyright or Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims for statutory damages. Energy Intelligence Grp., Inc. et. al., v. Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors, LP, et. al., Case No. 18-20350 (5th Cir., January 15, 2020) (Higginson, J.).

In 2014, energy industry publisher Energy Intelligence Group, Inc. and its affiliated entity in the United Kingdom (together, EIG) filed suit against energy securities investment firm Kayne Anderson Capital Advisers (KA), alleging copyright infringement and abuses of the DMCA based on a KA partner’s violation of US copyright law and violation of his subscription agreement for EIG’s Oil Daily newsletter, which provides news and analysis about the North America petroleum industry. The jury in the district court proceeding found that EIG could have reasonably avoided almost all of the alleged copyright and DMCA violations through real-time investigations and enforcement efforts, and thus awarded EIG just over $500,000 in statutory damages for the infringement of 39 works of authorship. The district court, however, still applied the Copyright Act’s fee shifting provisions and awarded EIG over $2.6 million in attorney’s fees and costs. The parties’ consolidated appeals to the Fifth Circuit thus presented an issue of first impression: namely, whether the failure to mitigate copyright infringement is a complete defense to liability for statutory damages under the Copyright Act and the DMCA.

(more…)

A Mixed Bag on New Rules – Juggling Copyright Preclusion and Patent Infringement

by McDermott Will & Emery | Jan 15, 2020 | Copyrights, Patents

Addressing issues of copyright and patent infringement, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act did not preempt copyright protection and that patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) does not require that the claimed process be performed by a single entity. Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Willowood, LLC, Case Nos.18-1614, -2044 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 18, 2019) (Reyna, J.).

(more…)

La vida loca: First Circuit vacates summary judgment entered before meaningful discovery

by Richard (Rick) Evans | Jul 1, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated summary judgment in favor of singer Ricky Martin in a copyright infringement action, concluding that the district court improperly resolved key factual issues without allowing the plaintiff to obtain discovery. The Court also vacated the district court’s order invalidating the plaintiff’s copyright registration because that ruling depended on the same prematurely decided issues. Luis Adrián Cortés-Ramos v. Enrique Martin-Morales, a/k/a Ricky Martin, Case No. 24-1805 (1st Cir. June 12, 2026) (Thompson, Aframe, JJ.) (Barron, J., dissenting in part).

The dispute stems from Cortés-Ramos’s submission of a song and music video to a contest sponsored by a recording studio and Ricky Martin for inclusion on the 2014 FIFA World Cup official album. After Martin released the song “Vida,” Cortés-Ramos alleged that it infringed his copyrighted work. Martin defended on the ground that Cortés-Ramos had assigned his copyright to the recording studio by agreeing to the contest rules. Cortés-Ramos contended that he never received those rules despite signing documents acknowledging compliance with them.

The district court rejected Cortés-Ramos’s argument that the dispute belonged in arbitration because Martin was not a party to the arbitration agreement between Cortés-Ramos and the recording studio. The court then adopted an expedited summary judgment schedule that foreclosed discovery, concluding that Cortés-Ramos had assigned his rights to the recording studio and, as a result, that his copyright registration was invalid. Cortés-Ramos appealed.

The First Circuit agreed that the district court properly exercised jurisdiction because Martin could not be compelled to arbitrate under an agreement to which he was not a party. The Court cautioned, however, that factual findings in the litigation could have preclusive effect in the parallel arbitration between Cortés-Ramos and the recording studio.

The First Circuit nevertheless vacated the summary judgment ruling, explaining that Cortés-Ramos had repeatedly sought discovery regarding evidence uniquely within the possession of the recording studio and Martin. Although Cortés-Ramos had not formally moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), the Court treated his repeated requests for discovery as functionally seeking Rule 56(d) relief. The Court found it fundamentally unfair to resolve dispositive issues while denying Cortés-Ramos access to evidence necessary to challenge Martin’s assertion that the contest documents assigned ownership of the work.

Because the district court entered summary judgment without permitting discovery on issues central to ownership of the copyright, the First Circuit vacated both the summary judgment order and the ruling invalidating Cortés-Ramos’ copyright registration and remanded for further proceedings.

A costly discovery misstep: Untimely damages evidence excluded

by Nicholas J. DiRoberto | Jun 18, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court’s exclusion of damages evidence under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c)(1) and the resulting grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff on all claims. Deque Sys. Inc. v. BrowserStack, Inc., Case No. 25-1534 (4th Cir. June 5, 2026) (Agee, Traxler, Floyd, JJ.)

Deque Systems develops software that helps businesses make websites accessible to users who have visual and hearing impairments. Deque sued competitor BrowserStack for copyright infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment, alleging that BrowserStack reverse-engineered Deque’s software to develop a competing product and falsely advertised it as “5x faster” than Deque’s flagship offering.

Under the district court’s scheduling order, initial disclosures were due on June 7, 2024; expert disclosures were due on August 9, 2024; and fact discovery closed on October 11, 2024. Although Deque timely served its Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, it failed to provide a computation of damages as required by Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). When BrowserStack later served an interrogatory seeking the categories and calculations of Deque’s claimed damages, Deque again declined to provide a damages computation, stating only that it intended to seek all available damages and that its calculations remained incomplete.

Deque also failed to serve a damages expert report by the August 2024 expert disclosure deadline. After retaining new counsel, Deque disclosed a $30 million damages calculation on October 8, 2024, just three days before the close of discovery. BrowserStack moved to exclude the damages evidence and sought summary judgment.

The district court excluded Deque’s damages evidence under Rule 37(c)(1), finding that Deque failed to comply with Rule 26’s disclosure requirements. Because Deque could no longer prove damages and failed to establish entitlement to injunctive relief, the district court granted summary judgment in BrowserStack’s favor on all claims. Deque appealed.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed. The Court explained that Rule 37(c)(1) “gives teeth” to Rule 26’s disclosure requirements by prohibiting a party from using information that was not properly disclosed during discovery. The Court found that Deque had “indisputably failed to comply” with Rule 26(a)’s damages disclosure requirements by failing to provide a damages computation in its initial disclosures, expert disclosures, or interrogatory responses. The Court rejected Deque’s argument that its disclosure of damages in a rebuttal expert report three days before the close of discovery constituted a timely disclosure.

Turning to the propriety of the sanction, the Fourth Circuit applied the five-factor test set forth in its 2003 Southern States Rack & Fixture, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co. decision:

Surprise to the opposing party
Ability to cure the surprise
Disruption of trial
Importance of the evidence
Explanation for the nondisclosure

The Fourth Circuit concluded that all five factors favored exclusion. BrowserStack was plainly surprised by Deque’s $30 million damages claim, which was disclosed only days before discovery closed. Curing that surprise would have required reopening discovery and significantly delaying the proceedings. Although the damages evidence was important, Deque failed to offer any meaningful justification for its repeated failure [...]

Continue Reading

One frame is enough: Second Circuit narrows de minimis use, limits fair use at pleading stage

by Nicholas J. DiRoberto | May 14, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a judgment on the pleadings, clarifying that the de minimis doctrine does not apply where the copyrighted work is identifiable in the secondary use – even if only a single frame is copied – and that fair use is unlikely to be resolved at the pleading stage when an entire copyrighted work is republished for commercial purposes. Richardson v. Townsquare Media, Inc., Case No. 25-291-CV (2d Cir. Apr. 23, 2026) (Lynch, Nardini, Menashi, JJ.)

Delray Richardson operates the YouTube channel “Straight Game TV.” In May 2015, he posted a 42 second video showing Michael Jordan intervening in a confrontation. The video gained widespread attention in July 2023 after the hip hop blog DailyLoud reposted it in full on X. Townsquare Media subsequently published an article reporting on the incident and embedded DailyLoud’s X post containing the entire video.

In a separate incident, Richardson recorded an interview with rapper Grandmaster Melle Mel in March 2023. Richardson posted a three-minute clip of the interview, in which Melle Mel made controversial statements about Eminem, to YouTube. The following day, Townsquare published an article discussing the interview and embedded the YouTube clip. The article’s header image included a screenshot taken from the Melle Mel video, depicting Melle Mel next to an image of Eminem. Two days later, Townsquare published a follow up article about rapper 50 Cent’s response and included a second screenshot from the same video, this time placed next to an image of 50 Cent.

Richardson sued Townsquare for copyright infringement based on Townsquare’s use of the Jordan video, the Melle Mel video, and the two screenshots. Townsquare moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that:

Its use of the Jordan video constituted fair use.
Its embedding of the Melle Mel video was authorized under YouTube’s terms of service.
The screenshots were de minimis.

The district court accepted each argument and dismissed the case in full. Richardson appealed.

The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s fair use ruling as to the Jordan video. Applying the four factors under 17 U.S.C. § 107, the Second Circuit disagreed with the district court’s analysis of the first, third, and fourth factors.

As to the first factor (the purpose and character of the use), the Second Circuit concluded that it was “debatable” whether Townsquare’s article added meaningful commentary, and even if it did, any transformative character was substantially offset by the use’s commercial nature.

On the third factor (the amount and substantiality of the portion used), the Second Circuit emphasized that Townsquare republished the entire video, rather than linking to or embedding it in a manner consistent with the original platform. That full reproduction weighed heavily against fair use at the pleading stage.

With respect to the fourth factor (the effect on the potential market), the Second Circuit concluded that Townsquare failed to carry its burden of showing that its use did not usurp a market for the [...]

Continue Reading

Provider’s degree of control affects DMCA safe harbor

by Jolie B. Schenerman | Feb 26, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of a photographer’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims against a digital media platform for lack of scienter but vacated summary judgment on copyright claims. The Second Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instructions to assess whether the accused infringer can claim protection under the DMCA’s service provider safe harbor. McGucken v. Shutterstock Inc., Case No. 23-7652 (2nd. Cir. Feb. 10, 2026) (Lynch, Lee, Perez, JJ.)

Elliott McGucken, a professional photographer, discovered that several hundred of his copyrighted photographs were uploaded to Shutterstock by three user accounts that generated more than $2,000 in licensing revenue. Shutterstock removed the images within four days of receiving takedown notices and terminated the uploading accounts. McGucken nevertheless sued, alleging copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 106 and false copyright management information (CMI) under 17 U.S.C. § 1202. The district court granted summary judgment for Shutterstock on all claims. McGucken appealed.

The Second Circuit agreed that McGucken failed to raise a triable issue on Shutterstock’s scienter regarding CMI under the DMCA. First, the Court found that Shutterstock’s practice of placing a watermark on all images on its site did not demonstrate that it knowingly affixed false CMI to McGucken’s works for the purpose of facilitating infringement. Second, the Court found that Shutterstock’s automated removal of CMI from all uploaded images, which is done to avoid malware and strip personally identifiable information, did not show that Shutterstock knew it was removing McGucken’s CMI without authorization or that Shutterstock intended to conceal infringement. On these grounds, the Court affirmed dismissal of the § 1202 claim.

As for the safe harbor provision regarding the copyright infringement claim, the Second Circuit agreed that Shutterstock qualified as a “service provider” with a repeat infringer policy and no interference with standard technical measures. The Court also affirmed that Shutterstock lacked actual or red flag knowledge of the infringement and acted expeditiously once notified.

The Second Circuit found triable issues of fact, however, on two critical safe harbor elements under § 512(c)(1). The first issue was whether the storage was “at the direction of the user.” The Court stated that the factfinder must determine whether Shutterstock’s review of uploaded material involved “substantive and discretionary control” over what appears on the platform, including the level of aesthetic or editorial judgment applied when deciding which images to accept.

The second issue assessed was whether Shutterstock had the “right and ability to control” the alleged infringing activity. The Second Circuit explained that safe harbor is unavailable where the provider exercises “substantial control” over users’ activities, such that decisions about what content is allowed on the site go beyond promoting or demoting material. The Court noted that control may also be inferred if the provider selectively reviews only a subset of uploaded content rather than reviewing all user submissions.

Since these issues remained unresolved, the Second Circuit vacated summary judgment on the copyright claim and remanded for further proceedings.

Practice note: The Second Circuit’s clarification of [...]

Continue Reading

DMCA safe harbor is deep: Plaintiffs need to get specific

by Hannah Hurley | Jan 29, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for YouTube, finding that the company was protected by Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In doing so, the Court joined the Second and Ninth Circuits in requiring knowledge of specific infringing material, not generalized awareness of infringement on a platform, to defeat safe-harbor protection. Athos Overseas Ltd. Corp. v. YouTube, Inc., et al., Case No. 23-13156 (11th Cir. Jan. 7, 2026) (Pryor, Jordan, Marcus, JJ.)

Athos owns copyrights in classic Mexican and Latin American films and sued YouTube for hosting unauthorized uploads of its works. YouTube invoked the DMCA Section 512(c) safe harbor, which shields service providers from liability for infringing material stored at the direction of users if certain statutory conditions are met. Athos did not dispute that YouTube expeditiously removed content identified in valid takedown notices. Instead, Athos argued that YouTube’s internal technologies provided it with actual or “red flag” knowledge of additional infringing copies beyond those specifically identified, and that YouTube’s content moderation and curation tools gave it the “right and ability to control” infringing activity.”

The Eleventh Circuit rejected both arguments. Echoing Viacom Int’l v. YouTube and UMG Recordings v. Shelter Cap. Partners, the Court explained that Section 512(c) requires knowledge of specific instances of infringement. A service provider’s duty to act arises only when it knows which particular material is infringing, because expeditious removal is possible only with such specificity. Since YouTube’s tools do not automatically identify legally infringing content, and because Athos provided no evidence that YouTube knew which specific videos were infringing, there was no triable issue on knowledge.

The Court rejected Athos’ argument that YouTube’s ability to recommend videos, remove content, or set platform policies constituted the type of control that strips safe-harbor protection. The DMCA requires “something more” than ordinary content moderation, such as substantial influence over or inducement of specific infringing activity. Because Athos failed to establish such control, the Eleventh Circuit did not reach the question of whether YouTube derived a direct financial benefit from infringement.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for YouTube, concluding that it remained entitled to Section 512(c) safe-harbor protection.