Michael Skidmore v Led Zeppelin: Copyright infringement in music under US law

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 321-323
Author(s):  
Hayleigh Bosher
Keyword(s):  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Ratio Rule ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Led Zeppelin

Abstract Michael Skidmore v Led Zeppelin No 16-56057, DC No 2:15-cv-03462-RGK-AGR, 9 March 2020 The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal upheld that Led Zeppelin's song Stairway to Heaven did not infringe the copyright of the instrumental song ‘Taurus’ and overruled circuit precedent to reject the inverse ratio rule.

Fracturing Constitutional Rights: The Prosecution of Alleged Broadcast Infringers in Nigeria

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Bankole Sodipo
Keyword(s):  
Civil Liability ◽  
Copyright Infringement ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Appeal Decision ◽  
Written Law ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Material Form

Abstract Infringement of broadcasts is often treated as a crime. The Nigerian Constitution guarantees that no-one can be prosecuted for any act that is not prescribed in a written law. Section 20 of Nigeria's Copyright Act only criminalizes dealing with infringing copies. A “copy” is defined in terms of material form. An infringing broadcast therefore connotes a recorded broadcast or a copy of a broadcast. This article argues that, statutorily, not every act that gives rise to civil liability for broadcast copyright infringement constitutes a crime. The article reviews the first broadcast copyright prosecution Court of Appeal decision in Eno v Nigerian Copyright Commission. Eno was unlawfully prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned. The article seeks to stem the wave of prosecutions on the type of charges used in Eno. In the absence of law reform, the prosecutions based on the line of charges in Eno constitute a fracturing of constitutional rights.

Paris Embraces Modern Art – But Not in Court: Opinion on the Cour d’Appel de Paris Decision – Jeff Koons v Franck Davidovici

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moritz Sutterer
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Modern Art ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Traditional Notion ◽  
The Us ◽  
Exceptions And Limitations ◽  
The Subject ◽  
First Time ◽  
Jeff Koons ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Abstract In February 2021 the Paris Court of Appeal (Cour d’appel de Paris) rendered a decision against the US artist Jeff Koons, holding that he had infringed copyright relating to an advertisement photography that was more than 30 years old. Jeff Koons is famous for his Neo-pop Appropriation art – kitsch for some, a provocative breach with the traditional notion of art for others. It was not the first time Koons has had to defend his work in court. The French decision is particularly interesting, however, as it shows a very narrow understanding of the copyright exceptions. It is an illustrative example of the issues resulting from CJEU’s approach in Pelham, Spiegel Online and Funke Medien, where the Court held that once the recognisability of original elements has been established, the only way out of the infringement leads through the formal exceptions and limitations of the InfoSoc Directive. Based on the decision, I will reflect on the openness of copyright for art-specific forms of referencing and in particular analyse the subject matter and scope of the parody exception and contrast it with less formal approaches to consider new creative elements. I will also analyse the question of applicable law in internet cases.

Ninth Circuit Nursery

2021 ◽  
pp. 171-207
Author(s):  
Steven W. Usselman
Keyword(s):  
West Coast ◽  
Textual Analysis ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Oil Drilling ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Federal Judiciary ◽  
Hydraulic Machinery ◽  
Appeals Court

Based on statistical and textual analysis of the 148 patent cases heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from its creation through 1925, this chapter suggests that the appeals judges created a legal environment highly favorable to innovative West Coast enterprises. Their rulings consistently sided with local patent holders and alleged infringers over litigants from outside the circuit. Cases involving only local parties produced more mixed results, as judges sought to mediate disputes among competing regional suppliers, while insulating small proprietors from risks of infringement. Through these means, the appeals court actively shaped competition and influenced the course of innovation in such emergent fields as oil drilling and refining, hydraulic machinery, and food processing. The distinctiveness of Pacific Coast patent law diminished after 1915 under influence of a federal judiciary stacked with protégés of ex-President William Howard Taft, who became Chief Justice in 1921.

scholarly journals "A Period of Consequences"': Global Warming Legislation, Cooperative Federalism, and the Fight Between the EPA and the State of California

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krista L. Cox
Keyword(s):  
Global Warming ◽  
Clean Air Act ◽  
Environmental Concerns ◽  
Environmental Legislation ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Clean Air ◽  
Cooperative Federalism

In 2005, California enacted Assembly Bill 1493, also known as the Pavley Bill which set out to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicular sources. For the Pavley Bill to take effect, however, California needed a waiver of Clean Air Act preemption. Two years after California’s request, the EPA, in an unprecedented move, denied the waiver. California promptly filed suit in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the case remains pending. This paper argues the Clean Air Act, as Congress originally envisioned, represents the best model for environmental legislation - a form of "modified" or cooperative federalism. In denying California’s waiver request, the EPA renders this cooperative federalism model ineffective; the EPA’s decision intrudes on states’ rights and disregards environmental concerns. As such, the Ninth Circuit should give full weight to the system of cooperative federalism and environmental protection espoused in the plain language and congressional intent of the Clean Air.

scholarly journals Has The ‘War on Terror’ Put Due Process on the Stand?

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 56-68
Author(s):  
Patrick Leisure
Keyword(s):  
Due Process ◽  
District Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Counter Terrorism ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Due Process Rights

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) struck a balance between due process rights and national security in the Kadi II case. Applying the ECJ’s analysis to a case recently decided by the D.C. District Court – the Zaidan case – illustrates that a more rights-protective approach can be attained in US courts too. First, this article will explore due process in Europe via the four different versions of the Kadi case. Then, it will take an in-depth look at the Zaidan case. The article concludes by arguing that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals should adopt a stance on due process similar to that taken by the ECJ in the Kadi II case – which served to uphold the rule of law in Europe by making the actions of public officials reviewable before EU courts in the counter-terrorism context. By exercising a more ‘muscular’ attitude towards the other branches of government’s counter-terrorism measures, the US judiciary might use this case to start a new line of precedent distinct from prior US cases with respect to US citizens’ constitutional rights in the post 9/11 counter-terrorism paradigm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document