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.