This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
This is yet another online content removal lawsuit, and it reaches the obvious and inevitable result that dozens of cases have reached before it. The lawsuit against Facebook for refusing the film ads is an easy dismissal. The court dismisses the contract and IIED claims on Section 230 grounds. Google ruling from 2007.
This lawsuit relates to an episode of the TV show Evil Lives Here called “I Invited Him In,” which discusses an NY serial killer named Nathaniel White. The court agrees with Microsoft. 2007); Shah v. Among other defendants, he sued Microsoft for Bing search results linking to the episode. Google Technology, Inc.,
My roundup of the top Internet Law developments of 2023: 10) California court bans targeted advertising (?). Facebook , a California appeals court shocked the advertising community by suggesting that using common demographic criteria for ad targeting, such as age or gender, may violate California’s anti-discrimination law.
The district court said that the buyers who made their purchases on the website had to go to arbitration, but the buyers who made their purchases on their mobile devices could stay in court. The court says it’s immaterial that there is a potentially long time delay between user registration and the purchases. Sadlock v.
Instead, Hunley and Brauer filed a class-action lawsuit against Instagram, alleging that Instagram was vicariously liable for, or was liable for encouraging or contributing to, the alleged direct infringement by others, by providing an “embedding” tool that easily could be used to facilitate public display of their photos. Supreme Court.
The term “person” has also been interpreted conservatively by the Courts in respect of copyright law. In 2019, the Delhi High Court rejected a copyright claim over a list compiled by a computer, on the grounds of, inter alia, lack of human intervention. [8] Few of the cases are discussed below.
In so holding, however, the Court declined to resolve the logically antecedent question of whether the discovery rule applies to the three-year copyright statute of limitations, finding “that issue is not properly presented here, because Warner Chappell never challenged the Eleventh Circuit’s use of the discovery rule below.” Nealy , No.
And how have courts done something about it. And because I have master’s in computer science, I worked as a programmer and you know, when I was studying, it was at 2000 to 2007 I did my masters. But you know, we learned from, there’s this case that went to the Supreme Court involving the white pages, so telephone directories.
This lack of clarity can lead to disputes and even lawsuits. The “Dancing Baby” case : In 2007, a mother uploaded a video of her toddler dancing to Prince’s song “Let’s Go Crazy” on YouTube. The mother filed a lawsuit, arguing that her use of the song was fair use. The “Hairy Potter” case : In 2003, author J.K.
And how have courts done something about it. And because I have master’s in computer science, I worked as a programmer and you know, when I was studying, it was at 2000 to 2007 I did my masters. But you know, we learned from, there’s this case that went to the Supreme Court involving the white pages, so telephone directories.
9) Supreme Court Tamps Down on Jawboning and Government Social Media Lawsuits. The Supreme Court is taking a steady stream of Internet Law cases, a trend that will continue for some time. Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear the TikTok ban, and Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear Free Speech Coalition v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content