WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its Oct. 1 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a petition for certiorari by the purported owner of a copyrighted software application in a case that sought clarification on the standards for satisfying Section 204(a) of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 204(a) (Anthony Johnson v. Storix Inc., No. 17-1503, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Five amicus curiae briefs were filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 4 supporting a news organization’s argument that a copyright holder can sue for infringement after the copyright registration is filed, rather than having to wait until the certificate of registration issues (Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC, et al., No. 17-571, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — Five months after filing a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court over the copyright transfer procedure in Section 204(a) of the Copyright Act, a software developer on Sept. 18 filed a supplemental brief citing subsequent rulings that he contends “show an increasing need to clarify the writing requirements for copyright transfers” (Anthony Johnson v. Storix Inc., No. 17-1503, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its Sept. 27 orders list, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in a dispute that poses the question of whether a prevailing party can be awarded only taxable costs — an issue that has divided the circuit courts of appeal (Rimini Street Inc., et al. v. Oracle USA Inc., et al., No. 17-1625, U.S. Sup.).
MILWAUKEE — Efforts by a copyright infringement plaintiff to obtain reconsideration of a June decision that partly denied summary judgment were unsuccessful on Sept. 25, when a Wisconsin federal magistrate judge instead stood by his ruling (Empire Medical Review Services Inc. v. CompuClaim Inc., No. 13-1283, E.D. Wis., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163682).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge’s dismissal of copyright infringement allegations was upheld Sept. 21 by a per curiam Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, amid findings that any similarities between a screenplay and a novel that was later made into a movie are unprotectible ideas, scènes à faire or de minimis (Joseph Nobile v. Margot Louise Watts, et al., No. 17-3752, 2nd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27068).
SAN FRANCISCO — An Arizona federal judge’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Joe Arpaio on allegations of copyright infringement was affirmed Sept. 21 by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals (David E. Kelly v. Joe Arpaio, No. 18-15046, 9th Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 27141).
AUSTIN, Texas — The rules and regulations (R&R) of a real estate listing website contained only a license to use uploaded pictures, not an assignment of rights, a Texas federal judge ruled Sept. 19, denying a homebuilder’s motion for summary judgment on copyright claims brought against it by a photographer (Alexander Stross v. Eugene Rowehl, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00676, W.D. Texas, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159846).
CHICAGO — Allegations by two plaintiffs that Turner Broadcasting System Inc. (TBS) and CBS Broadcasting Inc.’s “The Guest Book” comedy series infringes upon a YouTube series were dismissed Sept. 18 by an Illinois federal judge on the basis of insufficient evidence of substantial similarity (Diana Meynart-Hanzel, et al. v. Turner Broadcasting System Inc., et al., No. 17-6308, N.D. Ill., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158764).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a Sept. 18 ruling, the District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals sustained a determination by the Copyright Royalty Board of rates for subscription-based commercial noninteractive webcasters and ad-based commercial noninteractive webcasters for playing recordings over the Internet between 2016 and 2020 under the statutory license provided for in Section 114 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 114(f)(2)(A) (SoundExchange Inc., et al. v. Copyright Royalty Board, No. 16-1159, D.C. Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 26419).
LOS ANGELES — Allegations that the television series “Stalker” infringed upon the copyrighted semiautobiographical work “Book” were rejected Sept. 17 by a California federal judge in response to a motion to dismiss by Warner Bros. Entertainment (Kathryn Evans v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, No. 18-3951, C.D. Calif., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158338).
PHILADELPHIA — Assertions by an actor and producer that Fox Television and others infringed his copyrighted television pilot with the series “Empire” were properly dismissed for failure to state a claim, the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Aug. 28 (Clayton Prince Tanksley v. Lee Daniels, et al., No. 17-2023, 3rd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 24317).
NEW YORK — A company that owns an interest in Marvin Gaye’s 1973 hit song “Let’s Get It On” tells the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in an Aug. 30 appeal brief that a trial court judge erred in declining to permit it to intervene in a copyright infringement suit against pop singer Ed Sheeran brought by other owners of the song’s songwriting interests (Kathryn Townsend Griffin, et al. v. Edward Christopher Sheeran, et al., No. 18-1862, 2nd Cir.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The provider of an online news-monitoring service tells the U.S. Supreme Court in a Sept. 12 petition for certiorari that the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals applied an incorrect market harm standard in denying its fair-use defense on copyright infringement claims brought by Fox News Network LLC, asking the high court to consider existing standards in light of contemporary digital technology and free speech ramifications (TVEyes Inc. v. Fox News Network LLC, No. 18-321, U.S. Sup.).
NEW YORK — A New York federal judge’s dismissal of copyright infringement claims levied against the National Football League and the Associated Press was vacated, in part, on Sept. 11 by the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, which found that certain allegations by seven sports photographers are viable (Paul Spinelli, et al. v. National Football League, et al., No. 17-673, 2nd Cir., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25670).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Four days before a scheduled retrial over an internet service provider’s (ISP’s) liability for contributory infringement related to its subscribers’ illegal file sharing, the ISP and the plaintiff filed a notice Aug. 24 informing a Virginia federal court that the four-year old copyright infringement lawsuit had been voluntarily dismissed (BMG Rights Management [US] LLC, et al. v. Cox Communications Inc., et al., No. 1:14-cv-01611, E.D. Va.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — An adult entertainment company filed a petition for certiorari Aug. 20, telling the U.S. Supreme Court that courts’ interpretations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) have allowed video-sharing websites to escape liability for massive amounts of infringing user-uploaded content under business models that encourage such behavior and asking the high court to review the standard for when a website operator has knowledge of infringement and when they are entitled to safe harbor under the statute (Ventura Content Ltd. v. Motherless Inc., et al., No. 18-235, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Aug. 14 reply brief supporting its petition for certiorari, a software support service argues that a trial court’s award of nontaxable costs to Oracle USA Inc. in a dispute over software licenses runs counter to the Copyright Act’s provisions and deepens an existing circuit split on the matter (Rimini Street Inc., et al. v. Oracle USA Inc., et al., No. 17-1625, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In its Aug. 27 opening merits brief, a news organization tells the U.S. Supreme Court that initiating a copyright infringement suit requires only that a plaintiff has completed the statutory registration requirements, not the final issuance of a copyright by the U.S. Copyright Office (Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com LLC, et al., No. 17-571, U.S. Sup.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an Aug. 28 per curiam ruling, the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied without comment Google LLC’s petition to rehear a March 2018 panel decision finding that Google’s use of certain Java code in creating its Android smartphone operating system was not fair use and infringed copyrights belonging to Oracle America Inc. (Oracle America Inc. v. Google LLC, Nos. 17-1118, -1202, Fed. Cir.).