Search for: "State v. Song" Results 721 - 740 of 2,073
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Feb 2016, 1:56 am by Ben
One would think that Shields has a good case that the uses constitute "fair use" - not least from the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Bill Graham Archives v. [read post]
22 Aug 2007, 6:25 am
Can a corporation which has failed to update its address with New York’s Secretary of State (“SOS”) still demonstrate an excusable default when it fails to respond to a court deadline? [read post]
3 Feb 2023, 12:36 pm by Rebecca Tushnet
We still need to know how likely it is that a 6 note sequence will show up in 2 songs due to copying v. not copying/independent creation. [read post]
5 Jan 2011, 10:01 am
Citing the US Supreme Court's decision in United States v. [read post]
20 Mar 2018, 11:43 am
 In this regard, Hadley v Kemp is not an isolated instance (see Rockford Map Publishers at 148-9; Miller v Civil City of South Bend at 1093-5; Garcia v Google at 742-3). [read post]
1 Sep 2024, 2:04 am by Eleonora Rosati
Well, that might be true in the ‘real’ world but is rarely true in copyright too.Have you ever asked yourself why Oasis songs sound so good? [read post]
5 Nov 2019, 3:59 am by Edith Roberts
At Reason (via How Appealing), Damon Root looks at the federal government’s cert petition in United States v. [read post]
30 Jul 2019, 9:46 am by Ben
 In a second major case, a jury has now ruled that the Katy Perry song Dark Horse does plagiarise a Christian rap song. [read post]
13 May 2014, 1:36 am by Patrick Goold
Rub, Rebalancing Copyright Exhaustion, Emory Law Journal (forthcoming, 2015)In 2013, in Kirtsaeng v. [read post]
14 Aug 2009, 9:23 am
Photo: Marmadon See Also: Jury in RIAA Trial Slaps $2 Million Fine on Jammie Thomas RIAA Seeks Up to $150000 a Song in File Sharing Trial RIAA Seeks Web Removal of ‘Illegal’ Court Recordings No Settlement in RIAA v. [read post]
22 Jun 2009, 5:09 am
Nearly two weeks have passed since the Department of Justice filed a controversial brief in Smelt v. [read post]