Plaintiff, an architect, and the company through which he does business, filed suit asserting that he created then licensed numerous designs for colonial homes to two construction companies and that these companies and their contractors infringed his copyright in these designs by using them in ways the licenses did not permit after the licenses had expired. Plaintiff also alleged that defendants’ actions violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. 1202(b). The district court dismissed plaintiff’s claims against some defendants, granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants, and granted attorney’s fees to two defendants. The court affirmed in part and held that (1) any copying of plaintiff’s designs extended only to unprotected elements of his works, and (2) plaintiff failed to plead a violation of the DMCA. The court vacated in part and held that the district court misapplied the incorrect legal standard in awarding attorney’s fees, remanding for the district court to apply the correct standard. View “Zalewski v. Cicero Builder Dev., Inc.” on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against publisher Wiley under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 101 et seq., based on Wiley’s publication of textbooks containing eight of plaintiff’s photographs. The district court concluded that the applicable three-year statute of limitations barred none of plaintiff’s infringement claims because plaintiff, exercising reasonable diligence, did not discover the infringements until fewer than three years prior to bringing the suit. Nonetheless, the district court granted Wiley’s motion for summary judgment as to several of the infringement claims on the ground that plaintiff had failed to register the relevant photographs with the Copyright Office prior to instituting suit pursuant to section 411(a). The court held that copyright infringement claims did not accrue until actual or constructive discovery of the relevant infringement and that the Act’s statute of limitations did not bar any of plaintiff’s infringement claims; the court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s claims relating to the Narcoleptic Dog and Dinamation photos where the district court acted within its discretion to partially deny plaintiff leave to amend his complaint; the court discerned no error in the district court’s denial of Wiley’s motion for remittitur or a new trial; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to alter the jury’s award of statutory damages. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View “Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.” on Justia Law

Swatch filed suit against Bloomberg for copyright infringement after Bloomberg obtained a copy of a recording of a conference call convened by Swatch to discuss the company’s recently released earnings report with invited investment analysts. Bloomberg used the sound recording without authorization and disseminated it to paying subscribers. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Bloomberg based on Bloomberg’s affirmative defense of fair use pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 107. After balancing the fair use factors, the court concluded that Bloomberg’s use was fair use. The court granted Swatch’s motion to dismiss Bloomberg’s cross-appeal where Bloomberg lacked appellate standing and the court lacked appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court and dismissed the cross-appeal. View “Swatch Group v. Bloomberg” on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, UPRS and Bernard Gelb, authorized the clients of defendant to file a legal complaint and exhibits that were written and compiled by Gelb and in which UPRS and Gelb claimed copyright. Plaintiffs contend that defendant’s subsequent amendment of the original documents and filing of amended pleadings infringed their copyrights. At issue was whether the holder of a copyright in a litigation document who has authorized a party to a litigation to use the document in the litigation could withdraw the authorization after the document had already been introduced into the litigation and then claim infringement when subsequent use was made of the document in the litigation. The court held that such an authorization necessarily conveyed, not only to the authorized party but to all present and future attorneys and to the court, an irrevocable authorization to use the document in the litigation thereafter. View “Unclaimed Property Recovery Service, Inc. v. Kaplan” on Justia Law