This case involves the Polish tractor manufacturer Kirovets’ K-700 tractor: Saber makes the videogame MudRunner. It exclusively licensed the right to depict the K-700 in its videogames, including the right to enforce the exclusive license in court. Oovee make the…
by guest blogger Kieran McCarthy Most online terms-of-use agreements claim to give their drafters broad discretion to modify the terms at the host’s discretion. Some terms-of-use agreements purport to allow host websites to modify the terms by sending an email…
Ceesay, an Uber driver, picked up 2 passengers who allegedly murdered him so they could steal his car. A story about the tragedy. The passengers allegedly created a “fake” Uber account using a prepaid cellphone and gift cards. The estate…
by guest blogger Aaron Perzanowski, University of Michigan Law School Last week, an Illinois jury awarded tattoo artist Catherine Alexander $3,750 in damages at the conclusion of a copyright infringement trial. Alexander claimed that Take-Two Interactive infringed the tattoo designs she inked…
[I’ll blog the Supreme Court’s cert grant in Gonzalez v. Google probably later this week.] Yout’s software allows users to rip digital streams, such as from YouTube. It sought a declaratory judgment that it did not violate 17 USC 1201(a)(1)…
Elansari is Muslim. This is not his first time as a plaintiff. In this lawsuit, he claims that Facebook blocks pro-Palestinian publishers and favors pro-Israeli publishers. Thus, he argues, Jewish readers are more likely to get the information they want…
This case relates to Target’s “Cat & Jack” clothing line. The plaintiff, NOC, is a teenager who has copyrighted designs in hand-drawn dots that Target allegedly copied in the clothing line. Target and NOC had some direct dealings, including bringing…
Shared.com is a content producer. It ran Facebook self-service ads and participated in Facebook’s “instant articles” program that let Facebook embed ads in its content in exchange for a revenue cut. Starting in 2018, Shared “lost access” to the instant…
This is a 512(c) online copyright safe harbor case. We rarely see opinions like this any more. In 2022, I’ve blogged just one other 512(c) case (Davis v. Pinterest). (Business Casual v. YouTube should have been a 512(c) case, but…