Remove 2017 Remove Defendant Remove State law
article thumbnail

Viral DRM Awarded Damages for Its 512(f) Claims, But At What Cost?

Eric Goldman

The court does award damages for the 512(f) claims in some of the cases based on the defendants counternotifications. This produces a relatively rare plaintiff win under 512(f), where plaintiff wins usually occur only when the defendants no-show. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017?

article thumbnail

Big YouTube Channel Gets TRO Against Being Targeted by DMCA Copyright Takedown Notices–Invisible Narratives v. Next Level Apps

Eric Goldman

The TRO language doesn’t purport to apply to YouTube, nor could it unless YouTube had also been named a defendant. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? Longarzo * DMCAs Unhelpful 512(f) Preempts Helpful State Law ClaimsStevens v. Spoiler: Not Well) * Another Section 512(f) Case FailsISE v.

professionals

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Copyright Battles Over City Council Videos

Eric Goldman

Kilgore might need better legal advice on copyright law…but also, see my post on the Lenz case predicting that all 512(f) defendants had to do is say “yeah, I thought about fair use” and they would get a free pass. Benjamin * How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017?

Court 40
article thumbnail

Being a called a “backseat driver” takes on a whole new meaning

The North Carolina Journey of Law and Technology

Supporters of driverless vehicles vehemently defend the technology as “a leap forward that will keep San Francisco on the cutting edge of technology while helping more disabled people who are unable to drive to get around town and reducing the risks posed by drunk driving.”  ”  But are there laws governing their use?

article thumbnail

Face Forward: Strategies for Complying with Facial Recognition Laws

Debevoise Data Blog

State Laws Permitting but Regulating Collection and Use of Biometric Identifiers, including Facial Data. As noted, currently, only Illinois, Washington, and Texas have laws at the state level that aim to expressly and comprehensively address biometric privacy. In Santana v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. ,

Law 52
article thumbnail

Record Label Sends Bogus Takedown Notice, Defeats 512(f) Claim Anyway–White v. UMG

Eric Goldman

July 23, 2024): the defendants allegedly falsely targeted 117k items through its copyright webform, which Google delisted based on these false premises. Google sued for equitable relief; the defendants defaulted; and the court grants an injunction against further false submittals. 27, 2024) BONUS: Google LLC v.

article thumbnail

Section 230 Immunizes Snap, Even if It’s “Inherently Dangerous”–L.W. v. Snap

Eric Goldman

The plaintiffs asserted products liability and related claims against Snap, on the premise that Snap “is an inherently dangerous software product that Defendants deceptively advertise and promote in a way that facilitates sex crimes against children.” ” Third-Party Content. ” Application.