Last week, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals released its opinion in the Flava Works, Inc, v Gunter dba myVidster 2012 WL 3124826 (7th.Cir. Aug 2, 2012) case. The central issue was whether Flava Works, the owner of copyrights in videos, was entitled to a preliminary injunction against the social video bookmarking service myVidster. The injunction which had been granted by the District Court was vacated.
Archive for the ‘hyperlinking liability’ category
Understanding Flava Works v myVidster: does inline linking infringe copyright?
August 8th, 2012Posted in communication to the public, contributory infringement, Copyright, hosting liability, hyperlinking liability, infringment, ISP Liability, making available right, public perofmance, WIPO Treaties
Tags: barry soookman contributory liability copyright infringement Flava Works Google France v. Bac Films inducement liability inline linking making available right myVidster public performance reproductions Syndicat national de l’édition phonographique v. Google Warman v. Fournier WIPO Copyright Treaty
Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2011-2012)
June 21st, 2012Here are the slides used in my presentation to the Toronto Computer Lawyers Group earlier today, The Year in Review: Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2011-2012). It covers significant developements since my talk last spring, Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2010-2011).
The slides include a summary of the following cases:
Kraft Real Estate Investments, LLC v Homeway.com, Inc. 2012 WL 220271 (D.S.Car. Jan 24, 2012)
Swift v. Zynga Game Network, Inc., 805 F.Supp.2d 904, (N.D.Cal., 2011)
Fteja v. Facebook, Inc., 2012 WL 183896 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
Grosvenor v. Qwest Corp., 2012 WL 602655 (D.Colo., 2012)
Posted in APIs, authorization, C-11, CASL, click wrap agreement, Computer & Internet Law Update, conflicts of laws, contracts, contributory infringement, Copyright, copyright reform, data protection, defamation, DMCA safe harbor, E-commerce, Google Book Scanning, hyperlinking liability, innocent disseminator, intellectual property, Internet defamation, ISP Liability, IT Contracts, jurisdiction, misleading advertising, OSFI Guidlines, Presentations, Privacy, Reproduction, shrink wrap license, spam, Trade Marks, web wrap agreement
Tags: barry sookman canada clickwraps computer law copyright class actions copyright computer programs copyright infringement dmca E-commerce forum selection clauses Google Adwords hosting liability Internet Intermediary liability internet jurisdiction internet law ISP Liability keywords and misleading advertising online defamation webwraps
Copyright law 2011 –the year in review in Canada and around the world
January 13th, 2012Yesterday, I gave a talk at the Law Society of Upper Canada’s 16th Annual Intellectual Property Law: The Year in Review program. My talk canvassed developments in copyright in 2011. My slides are shown below. The associated paper prepared in collaboration with Glen Bloom, with the help of others, is available here.
My slides and/or the paper summarize the following copyright cases from Canada, the USA, UK and Europe:
CANADA
Re: Sound v Motion Picture Theatre Association of Canada 2011 FCA 70
Reference re Broadcasting Act 2011 FCA 64
Crookes v. Newton 2011 SCC 47
Posted in authorization, C-11, communication to the public, Copyright, copyright reform, Counterfeiting, cyberlockers, Fair Dealing, Fair Use, Google Book Scanning, human rights, hyperlinking liability, infringment, Internet defamation, jurisdiction, Piracy, Presentations, Reproduction, statutory damages, storage lockers
Hyperlinking and ISP liability clarified by Supreme Court in Crookes case
October 20th, 2011The Supreme Court released its reasons in Crookes v. Newton 2011 SCC 47 yesterday. The legal issue in the appeal was whether hyperlinks that connect to allegedly defamatory material can be said to “publish” that material. The majority of the Court concluded that a hyperlink, by itself, should never be seen as “publication” of the content to which it refers. Although the case dealt mainly with that issue the Court gave expansive reasons which will have significant impacts on future cases involving Internet defamation, freedom of expression on the Internet, and the liability of ISPs for dissemination of defamatory or infringing content.
This site is published by Barry Sookman personally. It is not affiliated with McCarthy Tétrault or any of its clients. Full bio 