We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
The firmament of copyright blog topics just got a little dimmer,
and a lot better clothed. Last month, after eleven years, three
Ninth Circuit opinions and 1,212 docket entries in the trial court,
soft-porn multimedia company Perfect10, Inc. stipulated to the dismissal of its copyright
infringement claims against Google (and others) in the Federal
District Court for the Central District of California.
As blogged about here
previously, the saga began in 2001, when Perfect10 sought to
stop Google from including thumbnail versions of Perfect10
photographs in Google's image search results. After
Perfect10's motion for a preliminary injunction was granted,
the Ninth Circuit reversed and, in a landmark opinion, held that the
thumbnails, although otherwise meeting the elements of direct
infringement, were nonetheless highly transformative fair use.
After remand,
Perfect10 sought to enjoin Chilling Effects, a non-profit
educational website, from printing full-sized Perfect10 images in
conjunction with scholarly articles about the lawsuit. This time,
the trial court denied the motion and, last August, the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
After another remand, the parties engaged in nearly 6 months of
discovery disputes, at the end of which the Court ordered Perfect10
to produce, among other things, a complete set of its financial
records. The day after that order, Perfect10 stipulated to the
dismissal of the case, with each party bearing its own costs and
fees. Just like that, it was all over.
For those of you who admire Perfect10's fearless approach to
litigation or are sympathetic to its plight, its prolific efforts
in court haven't been all for naught. For example, last year,
in a separate copyright infringement case brought against Megaupload (before that company became the
international poster child for copyright infringement), Perfect10
successfully fended off a motion to dismiss
and then negotiated a favorable (presumably) settlement. In
addition, according to Pacer, Perfect10 still has several other active
infringement claims in the California federal courts against other
internet companies.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
As is well known, patent trolls often threaten dozens of alleged infringers in the hope of scoring quick license fees from those who understandably prefer to provide a modest payoff, thereby avoiding expensive and protracted litigation.
In order to best protect the IP rights of a U.S. company seeking to produce goods through a Chinese manufacturer by providing a protected design, the U.S. company needs to take actions even before the contracting stages.
On November 12, 2012, the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of issued the Draft Rules on Inventor-Employee Inventions for public comment, and this article seeks to reconcile the different provisions between the Implementing Rules and the Draft Rules.
A discussion following Shepard Fairey pleading guilty to the misdemeanor charge of criminal contempt for destroying and altering documents in his civil lawsuit against The Associated Press.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling in favor of seven film studios finding that the defendant induced third parties to download infringing copies of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.
Video Interview: Discussing Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum With LXBN TV
