Search for: "State v. Song"
Results 41 - 60
of 2,073
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
17 Sep 2019, 8:29 am
Ambrosetti v. [read post]
9 Jul 2010, 1:26 pm
Manning managed to improperly access over 150,000 classified State Department cables. [read post]
23 Sep 2009, 7:03 am
Moreover, the United States Supreme Court had held, in Fong Foo v. [read post]
16 Nov 2017, 10:42 am
Carter v. [read post]
14 Sep 2013, 11:34 am
Artunduaga v. [read post]
25 Feb 2008, 10:02 am
Brennan, holding that the RIAA complaint fails to state a claim.February 25, 2008, Letter of Ray Beckerman to Hon. [read post]
15 Mar 2015, 7:00 am
United States - the 1922 case where a Japanese man sought classification as being white - I've got two songs for your playlist. [read post]
12 Dec 2013, 7:15 am
Through its suit, GoldieBlox was seeking judicial confirmation that its commercial video, which features three young girls singing alternative lyrics to the the Beastie Boys' song Girls, while playing with a Rube Goldberg-style contraption, constitutes fair use as a parody of the original song.However, just days later, GoldieBlox changed its commercial to remove the Beastie Boys' song Girls and issued a press release directed at the Beastie… [read post]
14 Feb 2011, 12:14 pm
Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. that ZIP codes are “personal identification information” under the state’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971 (the “Credit Card Act”). [read post]
11 Mar 2008, 5:00 am
Corporacion Habanos, S.A. v. [read post]
2 Jul 2008, 12:07 pm
Absher v. [read post]
26 Jan 2018, 6:38 am
State v. [read post]
12 Sep 2012, 6:29 am
Image via CrunchBaseThe United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has weighed in on the epic three-year litigation war between the Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA") and Minnesotan Jammie Thomas-Rasset, whose love of sharing copyrighted songs on the defunct KaZaA is going to cost her $220,000.In Capitol Records, Inc. et al. v. [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 5:27 pm
Legislative history does not include scenario alleged: The purpose of Song-Beverly, as articulated in Florez v. [read post]
9 Aug 2016, 10:00 pm
The six-day trial ended with a jury instruction that correctly stated that while songs and riffs may be copyrighted, common musical elements such as chord progressions are not eligible for protection. [read post]
25 Dec 2011, 1:00 pm
Renee Newman Knake, Michigan State University College of Law, has published Why the Law Needs Music: Revisiting NAACP v. [read post]
21 Jan 2024, 6:56 am
Here’s their plan: Evidently the plan is to only pay on streams over 1,000 per song accruing during the previous 12 months. [read post]
8 Oct 2009, 5:34 pm
UPDATE: Ethan has pointed out that Saulic v. [read post]
7 Aug 2007, 11:30 am
In Arista v. [read post]
23 May 2011, 8:47 am
Lamps Plus, __ Cal.App.4th (2011), the Second District (Division 5) reviewed dismissal of privacy claims ancillary to a plaintiff’s Beverly Song claim, including (1) Violation of the state constitutional right to privacy, (2) Common law tort of invasion of privacy, and (3) Violation of the UCL. [read post]
