Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: December 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

FRASERSIDE IP, LLC v. SKY ALLIANCE GROUP, INC., ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA (CENTRAL DIVISION)
3:11-CV-03065-MWB
FILED: 11/22/2011

This is another one of the “high volume” lawsuits brought by the adult industry against many defendants. The embarrassment of being identified as a defendant usually generates a settlement payment of a couple of thousand dollars per defendant.

The Plaintiff is the owner of the copyrights for adult videos. The Defendants have allegedly misappropriated the adult videos for sale to the members of their website.

Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement and false designation. Plaintiff requests Defendant to be enjoined from engaging in any further unauthorized infringement, to account for and pay for damages, attorneys’ fees, statutory damages and any other just relief. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1537.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: November 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

IN RE: SSC GROUP, LLC
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
1:11-MC-23891
FILED: 10/27/2011

Some states permit an action to be filed prior to filing a lawsuit that permits certain limited discovery. This often allows a Plaintiff to get a much better idea as to how to proceed going forward and it can be a valuable tool to use.

This action was brought to permit pre-lawsuit testimony surrounding an alleged BitTorrent file transfer group.

Petitioner desires to perpetuate the testimony of proper Defendant who has not yet been identified. Petitioner expects to obtain testimony from the affected Internet service providers concerning the personally identifying information for each of its Internet service subscribers whose accounts were used to infringe upon Petitioner’s copyrights. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1532.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: October 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


RON TOMA v. MOTLEY CRUE, INC.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:11-CV-06766
FILED: 9/26/2011

If you as a business are going to use images or content generated by third parties make sure that you have an exclusive or non-exclusive license, or the ownership of the material, before publishing it online.

Plaintiff is the owner of certain images of the band Motley Crue and the Defendants have been sued for allegedly publishing the copyrighted images on the Internet without licensing the right to do so.

Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement and breach of contract. Plaintiff’s prayer for relief requests for Defendant to be enjoined from engaging in any further unauthorized infringement, to account for and pay for damages, attorneys’ fees, statutory damages and any other just relief. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1525.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: September 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer
The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


STEVEN B. WOLTMANN v. CHICAGO GRIDIRON LLC, ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:11-CV-05994
FILED: 8/29/2011

Make sure before you use any image that you have that it is either purely from the public domain, owned by you, or properly licensed for use.

Woltmann was a photographer for a football team and this suit alleges that his images are being used without authorization by a successor team and football league.

Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement, conversion, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff requests an accounting of Defendants’ records and sums due to Plaintiff and an award of other remedies the Court deems reasonable and just. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1520.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: August 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


MICHAEL EASTMAN and MICHAEL EASTMAN IMAGES, INC. v. NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC, ET AL.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
4:11-CV-01296
FILED: 7/26/2011

Copyright infringement isn’t just for the Internet. Here you have a situation in which a major company apparently used the creative work of a third party without “clearing” its use. Remember not to use images you find on the Internet since they may be copyright protected and owned by a third party.

The Plaintiff claims to be one of the world’s leading contemporary photographers. The Defendants allegedly used his creative work as a backdrop for one of the major scenes in the TV show “Million Dollar Decorators”. This is a television series broadcast on BRAVO TV.

Plaintiffs allege copyright infringement, violation of the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, common law fraud, rescission, and breach of contract. The court is requested to grant preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and any further relief the court deems just. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1517.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: July 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


DENTAL WEBSMITH, INC. v. GUSTAVO COUTIN
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA (NEW ORLEANS)
2:11-CV-01485
FILED: 6/22/2011

There are many instances in which small professional offices hire a developer to build a website and the developer goes out and “borrows” another website and holds it out as its own creative work. If you start using such a site you are liable for copyright infringement. One more reason to make sure that the web developer you hire has a long history of ethical work.

Dental WebSmith develops websites for dentists. The Defendant allegedly misappropriated a website built for another dentist and still owned by Dental WebSmith.

The lawsuit alleges violation of copyright law and Dental WebSmith requests actual damages, statutory damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report Cross-Reference Number 1507.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: June 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


FINITO SERVICES LLC dba SUNSPOT INNS, RESORTS &VACATION RENTALS v. CHARLEE & ASSOCIATES, LTD., ET AL.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON (SEATTLE)
2:11-CV-00776
FILED: 5/06/2011

Some people think that when they receive a demand letter to remove images for copyright infringement or to stop using a name because of alleged trademark infringement just doing what is requested will solve the problem. This case is a good example of the fact that damages accrue when there is copyright or trademark infringement and often times a demand to stop use of images or a name is followed by a demand for damages. When you get a demand letter communicate with the opposing party, come to an agreement as to how to resolve the matter in its totality, and only then proceed to stop alleged improper use of images or names.

Sunspot is a network of independently owned inns, resorts, and vacation rental management companies. Defendants are alleged to have taken photographs from the Plaintiff’s websites and used them on their own competing rental websites. Defendants have removed the images but have refused to compensate Sunspot for the alleged infringement.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition. The Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an order to destroy all infringing materials in the Defendants’ possession, compensatory damages, treble damages, exemplary damages, and Plaintiff’s litigation expenses including attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1493.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: May 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


TROY COPPOLA v. PRETTY LIKE ME, INC. and DOES
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SANTA ANA)
8:11-CV-00535
FILED: 4/07/2011

We are seeing a lot of situations in which automated programs have been written to retrieve mass quantities of images for use on another party’s website. The bottom line is that if you cannot absolutely confirm the image is in the public domain you should not use it for any purpose. More and more lawsuits are being filed over the mass misappropriation of images without even using the DMCA takedown notice process or otherwise providing the Defendant with notice. And it is important to note that the law does not require such notice. In other words, the first idea you could have that your use of someone else’s images has created a problem is a visit from a local sheriff serving you with a lawsuit.

The Plaintiff is a sole proprietor doing business as “Life’s Vigor” and created original works of digitally enhanced photographs that number in the thousands. The Defendant is a New York corporation who allegedly copied the Plaintiff’s images and is displaying approximately 4,000 of those images on its website.

Defendants are accused of federal copyright infringement, common law unfair competition, and violation of California Business and Professional Code §§ 17200 et seq. Remedies requested include injunctive relief, actual damages, an accounting and disgorgement of Defendants’ profits, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1488.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: April 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

LESAFFRE YEAST CORPORATION v. FERMATRIX, LLC and PETER KRASUCKI
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI (ST. LOUIS)
4:11-CV-00501
FILED: 03/16/2011

In this case the Defendant is a former employee who allegedly signed a rather extensive employment contract which contained non-disclosure and non-compete agreements. Remember that non-compete agreements are often found to be non-enforceable. And even if you have a contract preventing a former employee from using your property there obviously is no guarantee he will refrain from doing so. Contracts in and of themselves do not create a bullet-proof environment and sometimes lawsuits simply cannot be avoided.

The Plaintiff provides products and services to a variety of customers in the food and beverage industry relating to yeast products and yeast applications. The Defendant is a former employee who formed a corporation to compete against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants’ website contains extensive materials owned by the Plaintiff and are copyright protected.

The Plaintiff alleges trademark/trade dress infringement, violation of copyright, misappropriation of trade secrets, and breach of contract. Damages requested include injunctive relief against the Defendant along with compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and any further relief the court deems just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1481.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: March 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

STRATEGIA DESIGN, LLC v. COGNITIVE SCIENCE LLC
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA (ALEXANDRIA)
1:11-CV-00190
FILED: 2/23/2011

The Defendant may be liable for copyright infringement, but it will all depend upon the wording of the contract between the parties. In some instances the contract only provides for the recovery of payment and the license arises prior to full payment being made, which therefore vests the right to use the content in the Defendant. A well drafted contract will always make the license to use the content, or the transfer or assignment of the content, subject to full payment and full compliance with the terms of the contract.

Strategia Design is a brand consulting company that specializes in marketing. The Defendant is a company that specializes in providing weight-loss solutions. The Plaintiff is alleged to have provided over $100,000 worth of website content development services and the Plaintiff has allegedly not paid for the content and services.

Counts in the lawsuit include copyright infringement of article designs, copyright infringement of website content, copyright infringement of logo design, breach of contract for Article Design Master Contract, breach of contract for Content Design Master Contract, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, an accounting and disgorgement of profits, statutory damages, actual damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and any further relief the Court deems proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1475.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: February 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


DAVID PAUL LARSON v. LEOPARD FILMS U.S.A., LLC
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (FOLEY SQUARE)
1:11-CV-00503
FILED: 1/25/2011

Whenever you are licensing rights to use an image make sure you look at the specific terms. Sometimes there will be a limitation on the length of time you can use the image. In this case there are allegedly limitations relating to the medium in which the images can be used. You have to look to the terms of license to really figure out what you are getting when you pay to use images.

The Plaintiff is a professional photographer who licensed the right to use certain images to Defendant Leopard Films. The film company has allegedly used the images beyond the scope of the license agreement with the photographer.

Defendant is accused of copyright infringement and the Plaintiff is requesting actual damages, maximum statutory damages, prejudgment interest, and any other relief the Court may deem just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1471.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: January 2011 - Copyright Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


WELLOSOPHY CORPORATION v. HERO NUTRITION, LLC and DAVID BARTON
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
2:10-CV-02229
FILED: 12/22/2010

Before you go spending a small fortune on litigating a federal court case over copyright infringement, consider using a lawyer to issue a DMCA takedown notice and disabling the website and your competitor’s financial transaction processor and interrupting other key business partner relationships. This can be a much more economical and effective approach than undertaking litigation.

Plaintiff and Defendant appear to be selling nutraceuticals. Defendants are alleged to have copied the Plaintiffs’ website and used it in the marketing of its products.

Wellosophy Corporation alleges copyright infringement, direct copyright infringement (public display), and unfair, deceptive, and fraudulent business practices. They request preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, transfer of the infringing domain, control of all infringing materials and content, actual damages, an award of Defendants’ profits, and other relief the Court deems appropriate. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1462.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: December 2010 - Copyright Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


MAVRIX PHOTO, INC. v. DAILY MAIL OF LONDON, ET AL.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (LOS ANGELES)
2:10-CV-09045
FILED: 11/23/2010

This case is a good reminder that all because images are on the Internet doesn’t mean that they can be used by you in any manner. Photographs are creative works that are most often protected by copyright rights that arise at the time the photograph is created.

Mavrix is a prominent celebrity photography agency which licenses its photographs to some of the world’s leading newspaper, television programs, and magazines. The Defendant is the publisher of a worldwide online newspaper. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant keeps taking and using its photographs without licensing and paying for the use. The photographs include those of Pamela Anderson, Roger Daltrey, Halle Berry, Kate Hudson, and other Hollywood celebrities.

The lawsuit claims copyright infringement and requests permanent injunctive relief, statutory damages, an accounting of Defendants’ profits, actual damages, and other such relief the Court deems appropriate. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1456.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: November 2010 - Copyright Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


SCHERBA INDUSTRIES, INC. v. GOOGLE, INC.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO (CLEVELAND)
1:10-CV-02288
FILED: 10/07/2010

If the allegations are true Google made a mistake and is going to be paying a license fee for the use of the image together with attorneys’ fees. Since Google’s alleged use occurred after the registration of the copyright, the law allows the Plaintiff to recover both attorneys’ fees and liquidated damages that could go into six figures. The rule of thumb in these cases is to settle for three times the license fee that would have been charged plus attorneys’ fees expended to date. Remember that all because an image is available on the Internet doesn’t mean that you have the right to use it.

The Plaintiff is a manufacturer and retailer of inflatables for business promotions and displays. Plaintiff alleges that Google copied the copyrighted image of the Plaintiff’s “Gorilla inflatable” and is using it in advertisements for Google AdWords.

Scherba Industries claims copyright infringement and requests injunctive relief, declaratory relief, actual damages, the maximum allowable statutory damages, along with costs and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1450.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: September 2010 Copyright Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

FUTURE BLUE, INC. v. DOES 1 – 300
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:10-CV-06256
FILED: 9/29/2010

This lawsuit is against “John Does”. If you do not know the party that has stolen your intellectual property (copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, domain names, etc.) you can still file a lawsuit against unknown Defendants and then use subpoenas and other discovery techniques to identify the proper parties.

Future Blue is a producer of adult entertainment content and the Defendants are alleged to be distributing and offering its creative works through the BitTorrent method of distributing data over the Internet. The Defendants are alleged to be uploading and downloading torrent files containing copyright protected content of the Plaintiff.

The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement and requests injunctive relief against all of the Defendants along with actual damages, statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1445.

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: August 2010 Copyright Infringement Cases

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.

RIGHTHAVEN LLC v. MICHAEL A. NYSTROM
DISTRICT OF NEVADA (LAS VEGAS)
2:10-CV-01490
FILED: 8/31/2010

It is important to remember that all online content is not free. Be careful about the content you use on your website and on your web properties, and make sure that the party providing the content has licensed the right to use it, or make sure that the content is truly in the public domain and available for free copying and distribution.

Righthaven is a Nevada corporation and apparently the owner of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. It has been filing numerous lawsuits against parties who have published its articles online. The Defendant is an individual who allegedly owns a website that has an article from the Las Vegas Review-Journal on its site.

Righthaven alleges copyright infringement and requests that the Court order preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, transfer of Defendant domain name to Plaintiff, statutory damages, costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees. Traverse Internet Law Cross-Reference Number 1449.