Quick Comments on the SCOTUS Cox v. Sony Ruling
My brief initial comments on the Cox v. Sony decision: The decision reaches the right outcome. It has been unconscionable that copyright owners keep trying to hold Internet access providers…
Does 512(f) Apply Differently to Counternotices Compared to Takedown Notices?
Executive Lens LLC v. Rapkin, 2026 WL 776965 (N.D. Cal. March 19, 2026) “Plaintiff is the sole owner of the copyrights in the videos published on the YouTube channels ‘Denver…
What Does a Hologram Trademark Signify When the Hologram Isn’t There?–Upper Deck v. Pixels
Pixels is a print-on-demand vendor. Pixels’ users have uploaded various images associated with Michael Jordan sports trading cards. Here’s an example: If this were a framed original of the trading…
Section 230’s Application to Account Terminations, CSAM, and More
The Section 230 cases keep coming faster than I can blog them (the first 3 hit my alerts in a single day). Weiss v. Google LLC, 2026 WL 733788 (Cal….
A Religious Organization is Suing its Critics, and the Weapon of Choice is Copyright—RRT v. Cheryl Bawtinheimer (Guest Blog Post)
By guest blogger Cathay Y. N. Smith, Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law Rapid Relief Team (RRT), the charitable arm of the Plymouth Brethren Christian Church (PBCC), has…
Another Reminder: Lawsuits Over Competitive Keyword Ads Are Stupid
This case involves two competitors that buy homes for cash: plaintiff Brothers Buy Homes and defendant John Buys Bay Area Homes. The defendant bought competitive keyword ads. Initially, the defendant…
Photobucket’s Attempted TOS Amendment Mostly Fails–Pierce v. Photobucket
Photobucket is a venerable photo hosting service whose best days are far behind it. In 2017, its management imploded the service by imposing above-market hosting fees. Most users stopped using…
SAD Scheme Copyright Plaintiff Must Compensate Defendants–Shenzhen Langmi v. Schedule A Defendants
Shenzhen Langmi Technology is a Chinese-based vendor of cosmetics and hair products. It claims that the defendants used its copyrights as part of their products. Initially, it sued 36 defendants,…
A “But They’re ‘Counterfeiters’!” Argument Doesn’t Clinch a SAD Scheme TRO–Emojico v. Schedule A Defendants
I blog SAD Scheme cases when they catch my attention, not necessarily because they are the most consequential ones. I’m blogging this one mostly out of schadenfreude. Emojico–the company that…
Ninth Circuit Allows TOS Amendment by Email–Ireland-Gordy v. Tile
[This is a non-precedential opinion, and the court unhelpfully cuts many factual and doctrinal corners.] The plaintiffs claim that bad actors misused Tile’s tracking devices to stalk them. The plaintiffs…