case study on copyright

• Graphic design trends
• Design inspiration
• Design history & movements
• Famous design & designers
• Creative thinking
• Top 9 at 99
• Design basics
• Design tutorials
• Design resources
• Logo & branding
• Web & digital design
• Video & animation
• Packaging & label
• Marketing & advertising
• Book design
• Art & illustration
• Clothing & merchandise
• Other design
• Entrepreneurship
• Freelancing
• Crowdsourcing
• Business resources
• Case studies
• Our community
• Our designers
• Our customers
• Engineering
• Get inspired
• Learn design
• Build a business
• Grow an agency
• Look inside 99d

5 famous copyright infringement cases (and what you can learn)

• Apr 19 2013

Copyright has never been an easy, black-and-white kind of issue. Arguments over copyright between creatives happen all of the time, it’s an inescapable issue.

Read through some of these famous court cases that have created major public discourse over copyright — how it’s handled, what it means, and why we should all care.

1. Rogers vs. Koons _

Photographer Art Rogers shot a photograph of a couple holding a line of puppies in a row and sold it for use in greeting cards and similar products. Internationally, renowned artist Jeff Koons in the process of creating an exhibit on the banality of everyday items, ran across Rogers’ photograph and used it to create a set of statues based on the image.

Koons sold several of these structures, making a significant profit. Upon discovering the copy, Rogers sued Koons for copyright. Koons responded by claiming fair use by parody.

The court found the similarities between the 2 images too close, and that a “typical person” would be able to recognize the copy. Koon’s defense was rejected under the argument that he could have used a more generic source to make the same statement — without copying Rogers’ work. Koons was forced to pay a monetary settlement to Rogers.

Significance

This is one of those famous cases that encompassed a larger issue in the art world, the issue of appropriation art. Can you build upon another’s work to create your own original piece? And if you do so, does that constitute derivative work?

It also brought up the issue of photography as art, was photography just a documentation of the world, or is it a creative and artistic product? Neither of these issues was entirely answered by the case, of course, but it has also become a reference used in many cases afterward.

You can parallel this with vector-tracing a photograph for your design. Are you creating a derivative work that subtracts value from the original artist?

2. The Associated Press vs. Fairey _

Famous street artist Shephard Fairey created the Hope poster during President Obama’s first run for presidential election in 2008. The design rapidly became a symbol for Obama’s campaign, technically independent of the campaign but with its approval.

In January 2009, the photograph on which Fairey allegedly based the design was revealed by the Associated Press as one shot by AP freelancer Mannie Garcia — with the AP demanding compensation for its use in Fairey’s work. Fairey responded with the defense of fair use, claiming his work didn’t reduce the value of the original photograph.

The artist and the AP press came to a private settlement in January 2011, part of which included a split in the profits for the work.

Though there wasn’t a court case and an actual verdict, this case created a lot of discourse around the value of work in these copyright battles. It’s unlikely that Garcia’s work could have ever reached the level of fame it did, if not for Fairey’s poster. Garcia himself stated he was “so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it has had,” but still had a problem with the fact that Fairey took the image without permission and without credit for it’s originator.

Credit, credit, credit! On 99designs you cannot use licensed work — but in the right circumstances you can use stock imagery. When doing so, make sure everyone knows the source.

3. Cariou vs. Prince _

Richard Prince is a well known appropriation artist — one who transforms the work of others to create new meaning in his own work. For an exhibition in the Gagosian Gallery, Prince appropriated 41 images from a photography book by French photographer Patrick Cariou, claiming fair use that he created new meaning out of the photographs. Cariou argued that it wasn’t fair use, but copyright infringement.

A judge ruled in favor for Cariou in 2011, claiming the changes made to Cariou’s photographs weren’t significant enough to constitute a change in meaning — fair use. However, the case is currently in appeal and the final decision has not yet been reached.

The initial ruling in this case in favor of Cariou has created huge divisions in the artistic community. It brings up questions about artistic intent and the subjectivity of art, asking “who was this judge to determine whether or not the appropriated artwork had enough meaning to be considered fair use” when the art could be interpreted differently by each person who viewed it. The jury is still out on this one.

Imitation vs. inspiration

Don’t be a designer who creates work too close to that of another. You have to make sure you are creating something original and not derivative.

Update 4/25/2013

Not two weeks after this article was published, the original decision in this case was overturned and the judge ruled in favor of Prince for the majority of the works in dispute, claiming that Prince’s work transformed the work in the way that it was aesthetically different, and thus acceptable under the argument of fair use.

Read more about the decision as well as the 5 pieces which are still under review by a lower court in The New York Times and Hyperallergic .

4. Modern Dog Design vs. Target Corporation _

Seattle design firm Modern Dog utilized a series of sketches of dogs in their compendium put out by Chronicle Books in 2008. The firm alleges that illustrations from that design have been used in a T-shirt produced by Disney/Target for sale, and filed a lawsuit in 2011.

TBD. There hasn’t been a decision yet in this case but Modern Dog has been campaigning online pretty heavily for publicity and funds to help with its legal fees over the issue.

The Modern Dog case has brought to light a question burning in the mind of many designers and artists — what happens if a major corporation with many more resources than me, utilizes my artwork for profit?

Modern Dog was recently forced to sell their studio to cover the legal costs associated with this battle, so it’s turning into a very extreme situation for them. We’ll have to keep an eye out for how this progressed and continues to change the conversation around this issue.

Always defend your designs. Regardless of who you’re going up against — if you think your design is in the right, then make it known.

5. Vanilla Ice vs. David Bowie/Freddie Mercury _

Vanilla Ice had a hit, in 1991, with Ice Ice Baby — it sampled but did not credit the song Under Pressure by David Bowie and Queen. Though at first denying it, Vanilla Ice later retracted the statement saying it was “a joke”. Facing a lawsuit by the duo, Vanilla Ice ‘fessed to sampling the work.

The case was settled privately out of court with Ice paying an undeclared sum of money and crediting Bowie/Queen on the track.

There’s really not a ton of meaning directly related to design with this one (except for, don’t use other people’s creative work!). But I couldn’t resist adding it. This is one of the most hilarious copyright cases ever.

There are more cases out there! Any you have learned from?

Want design tips & business trends (and the occasional promotion) in your inbox.

Our newsletter is for everyone who loves design! Let us know if you're a freelance designer (or not) so we can share the most relevant content for you.

By completing this form, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Google Terms of Service apply.

Current design contests

Designers, check out these contests so you can start building your career.

• Logo design
• Web page design
• Brand guide
• T-shirt design
• Illustration or graphics
• Browse categories
• How it works
• Find a designer
• Inspiration
• 99designs Pro
• Design contests
• 1-to-1 Projects
• Discover inspiration
• 99designs Studio
• Business card
• Browse all categories
• 1 800 513 1678
• Help Center
• Become a designer

• Who We Are -
• Trademark Services
• Plant Varieties
• Online Protection Services
• Patent Services
• Translation Services
• Industrial Design and Utility Model Services
• IP Services
• SAUDI ARABIA
• UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
• Contact Us -

Corporate Kaijus Clash: 15 Famous Copyright Infringement Cases

What is Copyright Infringement

Infringement of copyright occurs when an individual unlawfully violates the exclusive rights bestowed upon a copyright proprietor, sans their authorization. These exclusive rights entail the freedom to duplicate, circulate, execute, showcase, and engender derivative works from a unique work of authorship.

Ideas are a nebulous concept, and legally protecting something intangible can result in an interesting chain of events, especially when big names and corporations are thrown into the mix. We'll delve into some historic courtroom battles over alleged copyright violations and look at some of the most high-profile cases ever brought by well-known plaintiffs.

Here are the 15 most famous instances of copyright infringement:

1. Whitmill vs Warner Brothers

Despite Hangover 2's success, its publisher, Warner Brothers, was sued by tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill for using Whitmill's uncredited tattoo design without permission in the film and its promotional materials.

Despite Warner Brothers' claims that their use of the design was protected by the "fair use" policy, Whitmill pursued the case and sought a preliminary injunction that would have prevented the film from hitting theaters on schedule.

While the judge did rule against Whitmill's injunction request, he did agree that Whitmill still had a solid case and could pursue the lawsuit on other grounds.

An agreement was reached behind closed doors, and the film was released on schedule, thereby creating comedic history.

2.  Katy Perry vs Marcus Gray

Copyright infringement and the music industry go together like peanut butter and jelly, so it stands to reason that this sector accounts for the lion's share of high-profile cases.

Dark Horse, Katy Perry's 2013 smash single, was one of the year's biggest hits. Earning recognition for achievements like selling over 13 million copies worldwide, attracting billions of Youtube views, having the song performed live during the Super Bowl, and winning MTV's music awards for best female video music in 2014.

In spite of this, Marcus Gray, a rapper, sued Perry the same year, claiming that she had stolen the riff and beat from his song "Joyful Noise''. Legal representation for Katy Perry argued that Gray's statement is preposterous and that he is trying to hold "the basic blocks of music," which could harm all composers.

Damages for Gray's case were estimated at $2.78 million and were awarded to him by the court in 2019. The judge would overturn the initial decision, however, in 2020 after an appeal was submitted, claiming that there was simply insufficient evidence to support the case.

3. The Music Industry vs Napster

A young technical genius named Shawn Fanning developed a piece of software called Napster in 1999 when the internet was still in its infancy. It is a peer-to-peer file-sharing application that allows users to freely share and download music.

Suffice it to say, Napster caught the attention of the music Industry. Metallica's drummer Lars Ulrich filed a lawsuit against the developer of the software in 2000, alleging copyright infringement, unauthorized use of a digital audio interface device, and racketeering.

This is believed to be the first case in which a well-known artist has directly sued a peer-to-peer file-sharing software company. This caused a domino effect in which major record labels like A&M and others began suing Napster. The plaintiffs accused the software company of vicarious copyright infringement and were eventually found guilty in 2002.

To the public's chagrin, Napster was forced to close that year, apologized publicly, and paid up to $26 million in damages.

This incident served as the catalyst for some people's animosity toward Metallica.

Legal protection of something intangible such as an Idea can result in an interesting chain of events.

4. Vanilla Ice vs David Bowie & Queen

As the first hip-hop single to reach number one on the Billboard Hot 100, Vanilla Ice's "Ice Ice Baby" left an indelible mark on popular culture. However, one of its worst qualities is that it sampled the bass lines from Under Pressure, a hit song by Queen and David Bowie.

Vanilla Ice tried to defend himself from the lawsuit brought against him by Queen and David Bowie for the unauthorized use of their song by claiming that he had added a single note to the end of the riff to make it more unique, but this was deemed insufficient.

The case was eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money, with both Queen and Bowie receiving songwriting credit.

5. Apple vs Microsoft

There was once a time when the two tech giants squared off in court.

Apple filed a lawsuit against Microsoft in 1988, shortly after the release of Windows 2.0 , a significant upgrade to the original version. At the time, Apple accused Microsoft of plagiarizing the graphical user interface found on the Macintosh system without permission or a license.

This is where the case becomes interesting, as Apple did in fact grant Microsoft permission to use Macintosh's design elements in Windows. The mystery surrounding this part is that, for some reason, Apple's legal department did not receive the memo, after the release of Windows 2.0,

Apple was so taken aback by the suddenness of the legal proceedings that it skipped sending any sort of preemptive warning or threat.

As a result of this misunderstanding, the court ruled in favor of Microsoft in 1989, and although Apple attempted to appeal the decision multiple times, all of its efforts were unsuccessful.

6. Gucci vs Guess

In 2009, two of the fashion industry's most recognizable names squared off when Gucci sued Guess, alleging that the latter had violated several of Gucci's trademarks. Gucci had originally asked for $221 million in damages but settled for $4.1 million.

So why did that happen? The judge reasoned that Gucci's claim that it has repeatedly sent cease-and-desist letters to various parties over the years was a fatal flaw in the company's case.

These entities ranged from national corporations to small-time counterfeiters and infringers. With budgetary concerns and the fact that most of their evidence was speculative, Gucci's defense department has been stretched thin.

7. Starbucks vs Obsidian Group

Starbucks sued rival coffee chain Obsidian Group in 2016 for promoting its newest drink, the Freddoccino. Starbucks claimed that the name's similarity violates the copyright of their own popular iced coffee, the Frappuccino.

Despite Obsidian's efforts to assuage concerns by renaming their drink "the Freddo," Starbucks remained steadfast in their pursuit of the case, and the case has yet to be resolved as of mid-late 2022.

8. Art Buchwald vs Paramount Studios

In 1990, writer and comedian Art Buchwald sued Paramount, claiming that the studio stole his ideas from an abandoned project and turned them into the film's screenplay.

According to Paramount's defense, at the time, they paid their authors through the "Hollywood account," which means the screenwriters are paid based on how much profit the film made.

They stood firm in their claim that, despite gross revenue of $288 million dollars, the film produced no net profit, and thus they were not required to pay Buchwald. If this statement struck you as perplexing, the judge felt the same way.

He called Paramount's payment method "blatantly unethical and unconscionable" and ruled in Buchwald's favor, awarding him 900,000 dollars in damages.

9.  Star Wars vs Battlestar Galactica

For science fiction fans, 1977 was an interesting year. Twentieth Century Fox sued Universal Studios for infringement the same year that A New Hope was released and defined a generation.

Fox asserted that Battlestar Galactica, a science fiction series produced by Universal, was "too similar" to one of their flagship intellectual properties.

Universal Studio did not take this lightly and filed a lawsuit of its own, claiming that Star Wars stole ideas from older media, such as the 1972 film Silent Running.

Two years later, the case was resolved in favor of Battlestar Galactica. The franchise as a whole was not doing so well at the time, despite the positive publicity surrounding the movie. The original show had been canceled, and fans were flocking to see The Empire Strikes Back.

10. Apple vs Google

In 2010, as smartphones became increasingly important in our daily lives, Apple and Samsung went to court over Samsung's alleged violations of Apple's patents on several of its smartphone designs. Apple's main competitor was not Samsung per se, but rather the Android operating system developed by Google and used by Samsung and other manufacturers.

Partially because of a "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement," Google's legal team had to intervene to help Samsung.

Concurrently, Motorola filed one of the most publicized lawsuits in technology history, accusing Apple of intellectual property infringement. Motorola claimed that Apple violated their patents on 3G phone technology and other aspects of smartphone design, while Apple fired back by claiming that Motorola had infringed on their patents on a number of features.

The court was so frustrated by the fight that the judges threw out the case three times in 2012, on the grounds that neither party had enough implicated evidence and were told to settle out of court. 2012 was the year that Google bought Motorola.

Although Apple has never directly attacked Google, they appear to focus on third-party companies that sell Google's software products; nonetheless, Google appears to be adamant in defending its popular mobile software.

11. Bratz vs Barbie

Carter Bryant, the creator of Bratz, was previously employed by Mattel, the manufacturer of Barbie. During his time working at Barbie, he came up with the idea for Bratz, which he later sold to one of Mattel's biggest competitors, MGA Entertainment.

The new doll franchise debuted in 2001 and quickly became the plastic bombshell's biggest competitor.

Mattel sued both Bryant and MGA in 2008, claiming that Bryant's idea was stolen intellectual property. MGA countersued, resulting in the two doll manufacturers locking horns.

MGA accused Mattel of corporate espionage by having its employees trained in spying on its competitors and resorting to clandestine underhanded tactics, such as having its employees print fake business cards and use them to enter the private showrooms of its competitor.

The lawsuit concluded in 2013 with a verdict in favor of MGA and an award of $170 million in damages, but Mattel would file an appeal to overturn the verdict, causing both parties to walk away empty-handed.

12. Naruto vs Slater

Photographer David Slater left his camera unattended while photographing wildlife in a foreign reserve, leading to a court case involving copyright infringements involving both humans and animals.

A crested macaque named Naruto discovered the camera and started taking the now-famous "Monkey Selfies" that have been making the rounds online. Slater, after discovering the images in his camera, published the image and its context on the website Blurb.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) took notice of the photo after it went viral and sued Slater, Wildlife Personalities Ltd., and Blurb for copyright infringement, arguing that the selfies violated Naruto's authorship rights. In response, Slater filed a motion to dismiss, and the judge quickly sided with Slater, finding that Naruto lacked standing under the Copyright Act.

13. Lana Del Ray vs Radiohead

Lana Del Rey once claimed that Radiohead sued her for allegedly plagiarizing the hit song "Creep" in her 2017 single Get Free. Warner/Chappell, Radiohead's publisher, denied suing Del Ray or taking legal action against her, but admitted requesting that she attribute Creep to "all writers."

In 2018, during a Lollapalooza performance in Brazil, Del Ray appeared to confirm that the alleged lawsuit is over by telling her audience, "Now that my lawsuit is over, I guess I can sing that song whenever I want, right?"

14. John Fogerty vs John Fogerty

In one of the strangest copyright cases ever litigated, a record label once sued an artist for sounding like himself in a song he had written and performed decades earlier. John Fogerty is a musician and songwriter who was a member of the band Creedence Clearwater Revival (CCR). He eventually left the group to pursue a solo career, and his efforts paid off during the 1980s.

However, that all changed when he released a song titled "The Old Man Down the Road," which was later sued by CCR's record label, Fantasy Records, for allegedly plagiarizing CCR's "Run Through the Jungle." That's right; John Fogerty was sued over a tune he composed himself.

The judge sided with Fogerty in the end, saying, "you can't plagiarize yourself," effectively ending any further discussion as to whether or not he plagiarized himself.

After Fogarty's victory, he filed a countersuit against Fantasy Labels to recover the money he had spent on the case. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, where it was ultimately decided in favor of the plaintiff. The judge ruled that the circumstances of the case ran counter to the original intent of the copyright law, which was to safeguard creative endeavors and promote new ideas.

15. Youtube vs Viacom

Viacom sued YouTube for $1 billion in 2007 for "Brazen" copyright infringement for allegedly hosting over 150,000 clips of Viacom's television shows and owned properties on their website.

YouTube argued that it is not legally responsible for content that infringes on third-party copyrights because it is merely an online service provider. This side issue could become the case's deciding factor.

The judge issued an order requiring YouTube to turn over its internal communications logs and transcripts to Viacom for review. If not for one small detail, this evidence would be considered indisputable and Viacom would have won without a doubt. As part of a guerilla marketing campaign, Viacom hired 18 advertising firms to create "unofficial accounts" and upload them as random users before the trial began, an action that can be described as nothing less than a blunder.

Worse yet, Viacom had no idea which accounts belong to them, so they ended up suing the third party to remove content that they had uploaded themselves.

This gave YouTube new life, and they argued that it was unreasonable to remove any account without knowing whether or not it belonged to Viacom.

Since YouTube had no way of telling which accounts were infringing on copyrights, it had no way of stopping them. Viacom's case collapsed due to this minor oversight, and the judge ultimately sided with YouTube, potentially sparing the media conglomerate.

To take full advantage of your brand and to maintain its goodwill, businesses should keep an eye out for counterfeiters and monitor if someone else is engaged in copyright infringement and reaping the benefits from their brand, If you own a business and come across a situation where a 3rd party is infringing on your brand image for their own products, get in touch with us at [email protected] for a complimentary consultation on how we can protect you from such thefts.

Also read our article on Copyright Guide for Freelance Writers to learn how you can avoid infringing copyrighted material.

Click on the link for more information on UAE Copyright Law .

Recent Articles

Procedural Abstraction in Intellectual Property

Complete Guide to Trademark Registration in Bahrain

Copyright Infringement on Social Media: How to Prevent

A Guide to Intellectual Property Litigation

Metaverse Development: Impacts and Implications on Intellectual Proper...

Trademark Registration in Qatar in 2024 - Complete Guide

Amazon Brand Registry in UAE: Complete Guide 2024

A Guide to Intellectual Property Protection in Biotechnology and Genet...

Blockchain Technology and Its Impact on Intellectual Property

Growing Importance of Intellectual Property in the Fashion Industry

Fair Use in Copyright: Guidelines and Examples

A Guide to Intellectual Property Arbitration

Intellectual Property and the Role of Trade Secrets

The Role of Intellectual Property in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Intellectual Property Valuation and Assessment

Beyond Patents and Trademarks: Exploring Lesser-Known Aspects of Intel...

IP Due Diligence - Importance and How to Conduct (Checklist)

Intellectual Property Protection for Artificial Intelligence

10 Landmark Intellectual Property Infringement Disputes

11 Intellectual Property Strategies for Technology Startups in 2024

5 Tips for Guarding your Company Against Intellectual Property Threats

Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) Agreement

Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonogr...

Patent Registration in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)

Trademark Infringement and Enforcement in the UAE - Stay Protected

Trademark Renewal and Maintenance in the United Arab Emirates

Impact of UAE's Free Trade Agreements on Trademark Registration

Trademark Licensing and Assignment in the United Arab Emirates

The Madrid Protocol and Its Impact on International Trademark Registra...

Intellectual Property and NFTs and Business in the Metaverse

IP strategy: Grandmaster Moves to Checkmate Competitors

IP Protection for Startups: Fundraising and Investor Relations

World Intellectual Property Day 2023: Celebrating Women's Innovation a...

How the Technological Era Has Changed the Global Intellectual Property...

Belt and Road Initiative: Impact on IP in the MENA Region

Transformation of Intellectual Property in a Post-Pandemic World

Top 10 Intellectual Property Challenges Businesses Face in 2022

Trademark Registration in Saudi Arabia (KSA)

Patent Cooperation Treaty: All You Need To Know

Global Commercialization: Understanding Intellectual Property for Busi...

Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits

World Intellectual Property Day 2022: IP and Youth: Innovating for a B...

All you need to know about Non-fungible Tokens and Copyright Law

Trademark Renewals: How to Renew a Registered Trademark

Paris Convention of 1883 for the Protection of Industrial Property

How To Protect Algorithms That Enhance Businesses

ABOU NAJA Celebrates 50 Years of Intellectual Property Protection

Real and Fake in a 3D Printed World

ABOU NAJA Talks with Filmmaker and Actress Rindala Kodeih

ABOU NAJA Talks Entrepreneurship and Fitness with Maya Nassar

Trademark Registration in UAE - Complete Guide 2024

Notable Product Designers and Designs in the Middle East

Digital Twin and its Legal Implications

Epidemic Sound: How It Affects Copyright and Intellectual Property

Protection of Plant Varieties in the Middle East

Intellectual Property Protection in the Middle East in 2021

ABOU NAJA Talks with Fashion and Street Style Photographer Lina Mo

The Importance of Derivative Works

K-pop band BTS Fuels South Korean IP Economy

IP Trends 2021: How Intellectual Property is Evolving Around Us

ABOU NAJA Talks with Fashion Designer Ahmed Fouad

Patent Registration and Regulations in the United Arab Emirates

World IP Day 2021: Taking your Ideas to Market Legally

ABOU NAJA Talks with Entrepreneur and Filmmaker Hammam Nabtiti

19 Different Ways to Protect Intellectual Property

ABOU NAJA Talks: Leila Al Aouf Talks Journalism, Podcasting, And Prote...

ABOU NAJA Proffers Robust Law Solutions: GoodFirms

ABOU NAJA Talks: Mustafa Sheikh's Career Journey and views on Copyrigh...

ABOU NAJA Talks: Rosemin Madhavji’s Take on the Fashion Industry & I...

Debunking Common Misconceptions About Intellectual Property

Importance of Protecting Intellectual Property in the Digital Age

Music Streaming and Copyright

The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works

Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in the United Arab Emirate...

Intellectual Property Lawsuits and Infringements in the GCC

Intellectual Property and the World of Esports

Unfair Competition: How is it related to Trademark Infringement?

Copyright Law in the United Arab Emirates: Explained

Internet of Things: Imminent Industry Patent Wars

Beijing Treaty on Audiovisual Performances

Misuse of Intellectual Property by Large Companies

A Complete Guide on Cybersecurity for Businesses

Protecting Intellectual Property Through Cybersecurity

The Profits in Patents: Gaining Revenues from R&D

Implications of 3D Printing in Intellectual Property

Wunderkind: Business Insights from Young CEOs

Intellectual Property for Satire and Parodies

Ways to Monetize Social Media Influence

History and Evolution of Intellectual Property

A Millennial's Guide to Building a Start-Up Business

Types of Trademarks: All You Need To Know

Ten Most Effective Ways To Fund Your Startup

8 Ways To Fight Counterfeit Sales Online

Digital Transformation: Traditional Business to Online Operations

Role of Intellectual Property in Robotics

Intellectual Property and Social Media: An Introduction

15 Steps to Start a Business that Lasts

Intellectual Property and Marketing: How Compliant Is Your Ad Campaign...

An Intro: Ambitious Inventors Turning Ideas into Patents

IP for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

World Intellectual Property Day 2020

Trade Dress: An Introduction

A Guide to Copyright for Freelance Writers

Sound Mark and Intellectual Property

Managing Intellectual Property Portfolio

UAE Reduces IP Services Fees by 25 Percent

Netflix: A Brilliant IP Junkie

PepsiCo India vs. Farmers: A Tale of David and Goliath

To Patent or Not to Patent

Michael Jordan: Icon, Legend and Innovator

7 Reasons Why Trademarks are Important for Startups

Coronavirus: An Unethical Race to Patent a Vaccine?

21 Famous Copyright Infringement Cases That Will Make You Cringe

In the creative space where innovation intersects with legal boundaries, the clash between copyright law and the First Amendment gets tricky, giving rise to complex challenges and high-profile cases. The balance between protecting intellectual property and allowing free expression tests the limits of these legal frameworks.

Let’s dive into 21 prominent copyright cases that show how this tug-of-war between creativity, inspiration, and protecting original work plays out. Let’s check out these real-life stories where the lines between copyright and free expression get blurry.

• High-profile cases significantly impact how artists approach creativity while respecting intellectual property rights, influencing discussions on sampling, inspiration, and the protection of creative works.
• Cases that are settled out of court, teach us that copyright cases can be unpredictable.
• Creators should take precautions to avoid unintentional similarities by conducting thorough research, obtaining permissions, and seeking legal counsel during the creative process.

21 Famous Copyright Infringement Cases To Learn From

Presented below are big and famous copyright infringement cases across diverse industries, including fashion, music, film, and the digital realm.

1. Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams vs. Marvin Gaye’s Heirs (2013)

Copyright infringement and the music industry frequently coincide, resulting in numerous high-profile cases. One of the most famous cases is that of  Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams vs. Marvin Gaye’s Heirs , centered on their hit song “Blurred Lines,” allegedly infringing Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up.”

Claiming similarities in groove and musical structure, Marvin Gaye’s heirs accused Thicke and Williams of copyright infringement. The defendants initially defended themselves by acknowledging inspiration but argued for the originality of their composition.

However, the 2015 jury verdict favored Marvin Gaye’s heirs, leading to substantial damages and setting a precedent in the music industry. This case heightened awareness of the fine line between inspiration and infringement, emphasizing the protection of even the “feel” of a song under copyright law. 

2. Star Wars vs. Battlestar Galactica (1978)

The dispute arose over alleged similarities between elements of the two iconic science fiction franchises .

Star Wars, created by George Lucas, claimed that Battlestar Galactica, developed by Glen A. Larson, had infringed upon its copyright. The contention centered around shared themes, characters, and narrative structures.

In response to the claims, Larson and the Battlestar Galactica team argued that while both works explored common science fiction tropes, they were distinct in their storytelling and creative expression. The case eventually concluded with a settlement that involved adjustments to certain elements in Battlestar Galactica to mitigate potential copyright concerns.

This case had a lasting impact on how science fiction franchises approach creativity and intellectual property, emphasizing the need for originality even within a genre.

3. Apple vs. Samsung (2011): The Smartphone Design War Escalates

In 2011, Apple accused Samsung of infringing on its design patents, alleging similarities in the look and feel of their respective smartphones. The dispute primarily revolved around the iconic iPhone design. 

Samsung countered by asserting that certain design elements were industry standards and not exclusive to Apple. The case brought attention to issues like user interface design and the protection of design patents. 

Ultimately, in 2012, the jury sided with Apple, awarding damages to be paid by Samsung for patent infringement. This case significantly affected the smartphone industry, setting precedents for design patent litigation and prompting companies to reevaluate and differentiate their product designs.

4. Christian Louboutin vs. Yves Saint Laurent (2011)

Christian Louboutin, known for its distinctive red-bottomed shoes, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Yves Saint Laurent , alleging trademark infringement. The controversy centered on whether Louboutin could exclusively claim the use of a red sole in high-heeled shoes. 

Yves Saint Laurent argued that color should not be subject to trademark protection. The case delved into the complexities of fashion trademarks and the distinctiveness of a single-color mark. 

Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Christian Louboutin, recognizing the red sole as a valid and distinctive trademark, but with the caveat that the protection only applied when the shoe’s upper contrasted in color. This case left a lasting effect on the fashion industry, shaping discussions around color trademarks and the boundaries of intellectual property protection in the world of haute couture. 

5. Queen and David Bowie vs. Vanilla Ice (1990)

In 1990, one of the most notable music copyright cases unfolded involving Queen, David Bowie, and Vanilla Ice , which centered around the hit song “Ice Ice Baby.” The dispute arose from allegations that Vanilla Ice had unlawfully sampled the iconic bassline from Queen and David Bowie’s collaboration, “Under Pressure,” in the creation of his own chart-topping single.

The case highlighted concerns of copyright infringement in music sampling, with Queen and Bowie claiming that Vanilla Ice’s use of the bassline was unauthorized and substantially similar to their original work. In response, Vanilla Ice argued that he had modified the riff sufficiently to avoid infringement.

Ultimately, the case was settled out of court, with Vanilla Ice agreeing to pay an undisclosed sum and provide credit to Queen and David Bowie in subsequent releases of “Ice Ice Baby.” This case emphasized the need for artists to secure proper permissions for sampling and contributing to discussions around the legalities of using elements from existing songs. 

6. Flame vs. Katy Perry (2014)

Flame, whose real name is Marcus Gray, accused Perry of infringing on his 2008 Christian rap song “Joyful Noise.” The lawsuit focused on the alleged similarities in the beats and instrumental elements of the two tracks.

Flame claimed that Perry and her co-creators had copied a distinctive musical phrase from “Joyful Noise.” In response, Katy Perry argued that the elements in question were commonplace in music and not subject to copyright protection.

However, in 2019, the jury sided with Flame, finding Katy Perry and her team liable for copyright infringement. Notably, the landscape shifted when an appeals court overturned the initial ruling, absolving Katy Perry of the $2.8 million payment initially mandated to Marcus Gray.

This case, while initially impacting the music industry and raising awareness about the complexities of musical composition copyright, has undergone a significant transformation with the appeals court’s revised judgment.

7. Harrington vs. Ed Sheeran (2016)

The conflict revolved around Sheeran’s hit song “Photograph” and alleged similarities with the song “Amazing” by Leonard and Harrington. The plaintiff claimed that Sheeran’s song copied the essence of “Amazing,” asserting similarities in melody, harmony, and lyrics.

Ed Sheeran countered by asserting that the elements in question were commonly found in the music industry and did not qualify as copyright infringement. However, in 2017, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement, leading to the case’s dismissal.

The resolution underscored the unpredictability of copyright cases and the potential costs involved. This dispute left a notable impact on the music industry, prompting heightened scrutiny over song similarities and encouraging artists to be vigilant in avoiding potential copyright conflicts. 

8. Zindel Estate vs. Guillermo del Toro (2017): The “Shape of Water”

In 2017, a significant case arose involving the film “The Shape of Water,” directed by Guillermo del Toro, and the estate of the late playwright Paul Zindel. The Zindel estate alleged that del Toro’s film bore striking similarities to Zindel’s 1969 play “Let Me Hear You Whisper.”

Both works featured a janitor forming a unique bond with a mysterious aquatic creature. The estate claimed that del Toro had plagiarized key elements, including the plot and characters, leading to accusations of copyright infringement.

Guillermo del Toro denied the allegations, asserting that while he admired Zindel’s work, “The Shape of Water” was an original creation with different themes and messages. The case did not proceed to court, and the parties settled privately in 2018. 

9. Louis Vuitton vs. My Other Bag (2016)

The contention centered on My Other Bag’s tote bags featuring cartoonish imitations of famous luxury brand logos, including a play on Louis Vuitton’s monogram. Louis Vuitton filed a lawsuit, alleging trademark infringement and dilution of its brand.

My Other Bag defended its products as parodies, protected under the First Amendment as a form of expressive speech. They argued that the totes were intended to provide a humorous commentary on the high-end fashion industry and were not likely to cause confusion.

The case reached a resolution in 2016, with the court ruling in favor of My Other Bag, emphasizing the satirical nature of the totes and the minimal likelihood of consumer confusion. This case significantly influenced discussions surrounding trademark law, parody, and the balance between artistic expression and the protection of brand identities. 

10. Art Rogers vs. Jeff Koons (1992)

In 1992, a notable copyright case happened between photographer Art Rogers and contemporary artist Jeff Koons, centering around Koons’ artwork titled “String of Puppies.” The piece featured a series of puppies resembling a porcelain trinket produced by Rogers.

Rogers claimed that Koons had unlawfully copied his photograph and transformed it into a sculpture without permission. The dispute delved into questions of fair use, transformative works, and the boundaries of artistic appropriation.

Jeff Koons defended his creation as a transformative and satirical commentary on kitsch and consumer culture, asserting that it fell under fair use. However, in 1992, the court ruled in favor of Rogers, finding that Koons’ use of the photograph was not transformative enough to be considered fair use. 

11. Metallica vs. Napster (2000)

Metallica filed a lawsuit against Napster, a file-sharing platform, alleging that they facilitated widespread copyright infringement by allowing users to share their music without proper authorization. The case symbolized the clash between traditional music distribution models and the emerging era of digital file-sharing.

Metallica argued that Napster’s practices were harming artists’ livelihoods and the music industry as a whole. Napster, on the other hand, contended that it was a technology platform and not responsible for the actions of its users.

The case ultimately led to legal action against individual users, adding a layer of complexity to the debate over online music sharing. In 2001, Napster filed for bankruptcy, and while the legal battle left a lasting impact on the music industry’s approach to digital distribution, it also accelerated the shift toward legitimate streaming services. 

12. Naruto and PETA vs. Slater (2011)

Naruto and PETA v. Slater , commonly known as “the monkey selfie” case, revolves around a series of legal disputes stemming from a 2011 incident where a macaque monkey named Naruto took a selfie using photographer David Slater’s camera. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) filed a lawsuit on behalf of Naruto, claiming that the monkey should be recognized as the copyright owner of the selfie and that the rights should be assigned to Naruto.

The case was dismissed by a judge who argued that U.S. copyright law didn’t extend to Naruto since the copyright typically belongs to the individual capturing the image, and Naruto, being a non-human entity, wasn’t eligible. Following PETA’s appeal, a settlement was reached.

In the agreement, David Slater committed to contributing 25% of the photo earnings to organizations dedicated to safeguarding macaques in Indonesia. 

13. Tom Petty vs. Sam Smith (2015)

The case revolved around Smith’s hit song “Stay with Me” and alleged similarities to Tom Petty’s song “I Won’t Back Down.” Critics and listeners noted resemblances in the melodies of the two tracks, leading to accusations of copyright infringement.

The dispute brought attention to the issues surrounding unintentional similarities in musical compositions. Sam Smith acknowledged the resemblance and reached an out-of-court settlement with Tom Petty’s estate, leading to Petty and Jeff Lynne being credited as co-writers of “Stay with Me.”

This case had a significant impression on the music industry, highlighting the importance of acknowledging influences and obtaining proper permissions to avoid copyright disputes. 

14. Ed Sheeran vs. Marvin Gaye Estate (2016)

The controversy centered around Sheeran’s hit song “Thinking Out Loud” and supposed similarities to Marvin Gaye’s classic “Let’s Get It On.” Critics and music enthusiasts pointed out resemblances in the melodic structure and harmonic elements, leading to accusations of copyright infringement.

Ed Sheeran defended his song, claiming that any similarities were coincidental and that he drew inspiration from various sources. The case did not proceed to court, and in 2017, Sheeran reached an undisclosed settlement with the Marvin Gaye estate.

This dispute prompted discussions about the subjective nature of musical similarity and the challenges in defining originality. 

15. Associated Press vs. Shepard Fairey (2009): Obama’s “HOPE” Poster

In 2009, a significant legal battle unfolded between news agency Associated Press (AP) and street artist Shepard Fairey over Fairey’s iconic “HOPE” poster featuring Barack Obama during his presidential campaign. The case centered on Fairey’s unauthorized use of an AP photograph as the basis for the poster, raising questions about artistic attribution and fair use.

Fairey argued that his work was transformative and protected by fair use, emphasizing its social and political commentary. However, as the case progressed, it was revealed that Fairey had submitted false evidence and concealed the true source of the image.

In 2011, Fairey pleaded guilty to criminal contempt of court for fabricating evidence. The legal clash highlighted the complexities of fair use in the realm of political art and the ethical responsibilities of artists in providing accurate information about their sources. 

16. Napster vs. The Music Industry (1999-2001)

Napster, created by Shawn Fanning, allowed users to share and download music files freely, sparking a revolution in digital music distribution. However, this also led to a surge in copyright infringement concerns raised by major record labels and artists.

In 2000, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed a lawsuit against Napster , claiming that the platform facilitated mass copyright violations by enabling users to share copyrighted music without authorization. The case delved into the challenges posed by emerging digital technologies to traditional copyright models.

In 2001, Napster was ordered to cease its file-sharing operations, marking a significant legal victory for the music industry. The case marked a turning point in the music business, fueling debates on the impact of digital sharing on copyright protection, artists’ rights, and the industry’s need to adapt to evolving technological landscapes. 

17. Apple vs. Microsoft (1988-1997)

The legal conflict between tech giants Apple Inc. and Microsoft unfolded over several years, primarily during the late 1980s and into the 1990s. This centered on allegations that Microsoft had copied elements of Apple’s graphical user interface (GUI) for its own operating system, Windows.

Apple filed a lawsuit in 1988, claiming copyright infringement and the “look and feel” similarities between Windows and its Macintosh operating system. The case sparked debates on intellectual property in the software industry and the extent to which GUI elements could be protected under copyright law.

In 1997, the two companies reached a settlement where Microsoft invested in Apple and agreed to continue developing Microsoft Office for Macintosh. The legal clash influenced discussions on software innovation, intellectual property rights, and the competitive dynamics between major players in the tech industry. 

18. “Playas Gon’ Play” Writers vs. Taylor Swift (2017)

In 2017, a legal disagreement emerged between Taylor Swift and the composers of the 2001 3LW song “Playas Gon’ Play,” Sean Hall and Nathan Butler. The controversy revolved around the lyrics of Swift’s hit song “Shake It Off,” with Hall and Butler alleging that Swift had copied phrases from their earlier work .

The lyrics in question were “players gonna play” and “haters gonna hate,” which were present in both songs. Swift argued that these phrases were too commonplace and lacked originality, falling into the public domain. The case raised questions about the threshold for originality in lyrics and the extent to which short phrases could be protected under copyright.

However, in 2018, a judge dismissed the lawsuit, stating that the phrases were too basic to warrant copyright protection. 

19: Lana del Rey vs. Radiohead (2018)

In 2018, Lana Del Rey and the band Radiohead had a copyright infringement dispute that centered around Del Rey’s song “Get Free” and Radiohead’s earlier hit “Creep.” Del Rey acknowledged similarities between the two tracks and stated that Radiohead was seeking legal action for alleged copyright infringement.

The case focused on melodic elements, with Radiohead claiming that “Get Free” shared similarities with the chord progression of “Creep.” Lana Del Rey asserted that any resemblances were unintentional and offered to credit Radiohead in her album.

In the end, the dispute was reportedly settled out of court , with Lana Del Rey confirming that she was allowed to keep “Get Free” on her album without further financial obligations to Radiohead. This case prompted discussions on the complexities of music copyright, unintentional similarities, and the potential for out-of-court resolutions in the music industry. 

20. Art Buchwald vs. Paramount (1988)

In 1988, a legal battle developed between humorist Art Buchwald and Paramount Pictures over the film “Coming to America,” starring Eddie Murphy. The argument revolved around Buchwald’s claim that the film’s script was based on an idea he had pitched to Paramount.

Buchwald filed a lawsuit, alleging a breach of contract and seeking a share of the profits from the successful movie. Paramount argued that the film was an original work and that any similarities were coincidental.

The case went to trial, and in 1990, the court ruled in favor of Buchwald, determining that Paramount had, indeed, breached the agreement. The ruling highlighted the importance of honoring contractual obligations and fairly compensating creators for their contributions.

The case settled for an undisclosed sum, emphasizing the need for Hollywood studios to respect the intellectual property rights of writers and creators.

21. Viacom vs. YouTube (2007-2010)

Viacom filed a lawsuit against YouTube, claiming that the platform allowed users to upload and share copyrighted Viacom content without authorization. The case raised questions about the responsibilities of online platforms in checking copyright infringement and the application of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

YouTube argued that it was protected by the DMCA’s safe harbor provisions, which shield online service providers from liability for user-uploaded content if they promptly remove infringing material upon notification. In 2010, the court ruled in favor of YouTube, emphasizing the platform’s compliance with the DMCA and that YouTube had no way of constantly pre-screening user-generated content.

The case set legal precedents for the responsibilities of online platforms in addressing copyright infringement issues, and the judge ultimately sided with YouTube, contributing to discussions on the balance between protecting intellectual property and encouraging online innovation.

Frequently Asked Questions

How can you handle the fine line between inspiration and copyright infringement in your creative work.

Be mindful of the source of inspiration and strive to create original content that goes beyond mere replication. Understand the principles of fair use and seek legal advice if unsure about potential infringement.

What impact have high-profile copyright cases had on how artists approach creativity?

High-profile cases have raised awareness about the need to secure permissions from the copyright holder for sampling, inspired careful consideration of influences, and emphasized the importance of respecting intellectual property rights while encouraging creativity.

Can you provide examples of successful defenses against copyright infringement claims in the creative industries?

Defenses often involve showcasing the originality of the accused work, proving that similarities are coincidental, or highlighting elements protected by fair use. Successful defenses require a thorough understanding of copyright law.

What are the implications for creators regarding digital copyright infringement and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)?

Creators should be vigilant about protecting their work online, understand DMCA provisions, and promptly address any unauthorized use. Online platforms play a significant role in both exposure and potential infringement, making proactive protection essential.

What precautions can you take to protect your work against copyright infringement, especially in the age of digital sharing?

Utilize watermarking, licensing agreements, and digital rights management tools to monitor and protect your creative content online. Regularly monitor platforms for unauthorized use and be prepared to take legal action if needed.

• U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index

Search Cases

Select jurisdiction or jurisdictions to search, select category or categories to search.

31 Notable Copyright Infringement Cases

Key takeaways.

• Copyright infringement is using a creative work without the owner’s consent. This can include copying, distributing, or adapting the work in any way.
• Fair use is a legal defense that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission.
• Numerous high-profile copyright infringement cases exist.
• Understanding copyright law is crucial for creators and consumers. It helps protect creativity while allowing fair use for commentary, criticism, and education.

Copyright infringement cases have been a persistent and prominent fixture in the public discourse for several decades.

As technological innovations advance at an unprecedented pace, the intricate issue of intellectual property rights assumes an increasingly convoluted form, thereby presenting a formidable challenge in safeguarding creative works.

In this article, we shall undertake a comprehensive exploration of the multifaceted concept of copyright infringement, delving into noteworthy instances of such violations, assessing their repercussions across diverse domains of society, and offering strategies for effectively avoiding infringement.

Protect Your Brand & Recover Revenue With Bytescare Brand Protection

What is copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement is an unlawful act whereby an individual uses a creative work without obtaining the proprietor’s consent.

This transgression violates the proprietor’s exclusive rights to govern the utilisation of their intellectual property and to benefit monetarily from it.

To illustrate, consider downloading and appropriating someone’s photograph from the internet and integrating it into your website without the owner’s authorisation; this constitutes copyright infringement.

One should be cognisant that copyright infringement is not limited to misappropriating another’s work and claiming it as one’s own. It also involves exploiting it in a manner that the owner has not sanctioned.

Therefore, it is imperative to obtain the copyright owner’s consent before utilising their creative work.

If one is uncertain whether or not the use of such a work is permitted, it is advisable to proceed with caution and abstain from using it entirely.

20 International Copyright Infringement Cases

Star wars vs battlestar galactica.

Back in 1977, science fiction fans had a lot to talk about.

This was the year that witnessed the launch of two blockbuster franchises, namely Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica, both of which promptly rose to eminence.

However, things became rather convoluted when Twentieth Century Fox mounted a lawsuit against Universal Studios, the producers of Battlestar Galactica, alleging copyright infringement.

Fox contended that Battlestar Galactica bore too close a resemblance to Star Wars and that their intellectual property was being duplicated.

Not one to take it lying down, Universal Studios filed its lawsuit against Fox. They claimed that Star Wars had stolen ideas from older media, like the 1972 film Silent Running.

After a two-year litigation process, the legal case concerning Battlestar Galactica was resolved in its favor.

However, the franchise as a whole wasn’t doing so well at the time. The original show had been canceled, and fans were more interested in the next Star Wars movie, The Empire Strikes Back.

Naruto vs Slater

Have you heard about the case involving Naruto the Macaque and photographer David Slater? It’s a pretty interesting story that affects both humans and animals.

One day, Slater was out taking photos of wildlife in a foreign reserve and left his camera unattended for a moment.

A crested macaque named Naruto stumbled upon a camera and began taking selfies, which gained widespread popularity on the internet.

Slater was excited about the photos and published them on the website Blurb, which caught the attention of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

PETA argued that the monkey selfies violated Naruto’s authorship rights and filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Slater, Wildlife Personalities Ltd., and Blurb.

However, Slater didn’t back down and filed a motion to dismiss the case. The judge ultimately sided with Slater, finding that Naruto lacked standing under the Copyright Act.

It’s a fascinating case that shows just how complex copyright law can be, especially when it involves animals.

While Naruto may have taken the photos, the law ultimately determined that he didn’t have the legal standing to claim copyright ownership of them.

Suggested Reading: Who can claim copyright ?

Starbucks vs Obsidian Group

In 2016, Starbucks filed a lawsuit against a competing coffee chain called Obsidian Group.

Starbucks claimed that Obsidian’s new drink, called the “Freddoccino,” was too similar to their own popular iced coffee, the “Frappuccino,” and that this violated Starbucks’ copyright.

Obsidian Group tried to resolve the issue by changing the name of their drink to “the Freddo,” but Starbucks was still not satisfied and continued with the lawsuit. As of mid-late 2022, the case has not yet been resolved.

Apple vs Microsoft

When Windows 2.0 , a significant update to its original version, was released in 1988, Apple sued Microsoft shortly afterward.

Apple had charged Microsoft for stealing the graphical user interface (GUI) of their Macintosh OS without their permission or a license to do so. This is why this occurred.

However, it was later revealed that Apple had permitted Microsoft to use some design elements of the Macintosh GUI in Windows.

Unfortunately, Apple’s legal department was unaware of this agreement and proceeded with the lawsuit.

In 1989, the court sided with Microsoft, and despite Apple’s best efforts, the company was unable to overturn the ruling on appeal.

Further Reading: Apple vs Microsoft copyright case study

Gucci vs Guess

Gucci and Guess, two of the most well-known brands in the fashion business, got into a legal dispute in 2009 when Gucci claimed that Guess had infringed on several of its trademarks.

Gucci first sought $221 million in damages but only agreed to pay $4.1 million.

What caused that, then? According to the judge, Guci’s argument that it frequently sent cease-and-desist letters to different parties over the years had a fatal defect.

These organisations included large multinational enterprises as well as insignificant copycats and infringers.

Gucci’s defense team has been overworked due to economic constraints and the fact that the majority of their evidence was conjectural.

The Case of Dolls: Bratz vs Barbie

Carter Bryant worked for Mattel, the maker of Barbie dolls, and during his time there, he came up with the idea for Bratz dolls. He later sold the idea to MGA Entertainment, which launched the Bratz line of dolls in 2001.

Mattel sued both Bryant and MGA in 2008, claiming that Bryant’s idea for Bratz was developed while he was still employed by Mattel and, therefore, Mattel owned the intellectual property rights to the dolls.

MGA said that Mattel had used sneaky and unfair methods to try to stop Bratz from being successful, like spying on them and pretending to be their employees (via fake id cards) to get into their private showrooms.

The trial went on for several years, with MGA eventually winning and being awarded $170 million in damages. However, Mattel appealed the decision, and in the end, neither company received any compensation.

Robin Thicke & Pharrell Williams v. Marvin Gaye

Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams were sued by the estate of Marvin Gaye, who claimed that Thicke and Williams had stolen the “General vibe” and some percussive elements from Gaye’s song “Got to Give It Up” for their song “Blurred Lines”.

The court agreed with Gaye’s estate and ruled in their favor. Thicke and Williams had to pay $5.3 million in damages and agreed to pay a 50% royalty fee. This was one of the largest payouts in music copyright history .

Art Buchwald vs. Paramount: The Battle over Stolen Ideas and Unethical Payment Practices

In 1990, writer and comedian Art Buchwald filed a lawsuit against Paramount, alleging that they had taken ideas from one of his abandoned projects and used them for a movie.

Paramount argued that they paid their authors based on the film’s profit and that since the movie made no net profit despite grossing $288 million, they were not obligated to pay Buchwald.

The judge determined that the defendant’s payment method was unethical. The court ruled in favor of Buchwald, granting him $900,000 in damages.

Whitmill vs Warner Brothers

Despite the success of Hangover 2, its producer, Warner Brothers, faced a lawsuit from tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill.

Whitmill accused them of using his unique tattoo design without permission in the movie and promotional materials.

Warner Brothers argued that their use of the design was protected by “fair use,” but Whitmill continued with the case.

He even sought a preliminary injunction to stop the movie from being released on time.

Although the judge rejected Whitmill’s injunction request, he acknowledged that Whitmill had a strong case and could proceed with the legal actions on other grounds.

In the end, an agreement was made privately, allowing the film to be released as planned and securing its place in comedy history.

Suggested Reading: Tattoo copyright infringement

Katy Perry vs Marcus Gray

Copyright infringement and the music industry often go hand in hand, leading to numerous high-profile cases.

One such case involves Katy Perry’s 2013 hit single “Dark Horse,” which achieved massive success, selling over 13 million copies worldwide, garnering billions of YouTube views, and winning prestigious awards.

However, in 2014, rapper Marcus Gray sued Katy, alleging that she had stolen the riff and beat from his song “Joyful Noise.”

Perry’s legal team argued that Gray’s claim was absurd and that he was attempting to claim ownership of fundamental musical elements, which could negatively impact all composers.

In 2019, the court awarded Gray damages of $2.78 million. However, in 2020, the verdict was overturned on appeal due to a lack of evidence to support the claim.

The Smartphone Patent Wars: Apple vs Samsung and Motorola

In 2010, Apple and Samsung were in a legal dispute over Samsung’s alleged infringement of Apple’s smartphone design patents.

The Android OS, created by Google and adopted by Samsung and other manufacturers, was Apple’s key rival rather than Samsung itself.

Due to an agreement between Samsung and Google, Google’s legal team also had to get involved in the case.

At the same time, Motorola filed a lawsuit against Apple, accusing it of infringing on its patents related to 3G technology and smartphone design. Apple responded by saying that Motorola had infringed on its patents too.

The case became so complicated that the court dismissed it three times in 2012 because neither side had enough clear evidence. The court suggested that they settle out of court instead. In the same year, Google purchased Motorola.

Although Apple has never directly attacked Google, it appears to be targeting third-party companies that use Google’s software products. However, Google seems determined to defend its popular mobile software.

Viacom vs. YouTube

Back in 2007, Viacom, a media company, sued YouTube, a website where people can share videos, for $1 billion.

Viacom said that YouTube lets people upload more than 150,000 videos of their TV shows and other copyrighted stuff without asking for permission.

Viacom accused YouTube of “brazen” copyright infringement.

Since they are only an online service provider, YouTube claimed that they are not legally liable for content that violates the rights of third parties.

The case hinged on whether YouTube was responsible for the content on its site or not.

The judge overseeing the case ordered YouTube to hand over their internal communications logs and transcripts to Viacom for review to see if they knew about the copyrighted content.

However, Viacom made a significant mistake. As part of a guerilla marketing campaign, Viacom hired 18 advertising firms to create “unofficial accounts” and upload content as random users before the trial began.

They did not keep track of which accounts were theirs.

This blunder hurt Viacom’s case. They ended up suing third-party accounts that they had uploaded themselves, without realising it.

YouTube argued that they could not remove accounts without knowing if they were owned by Viacom, and it was unreasonable to do so.

As YouTube had no way of identifying which accounts were violating copyrights, they were powerless to do anything about it.

As a result, the judge ultimately sided with YouTube, ruling that they were not responsible for the copyrighted content on their site. This decision potentially spared YouTube from paying $1 billion to Viacom.

The Associated Press vs. Fairey

The “Hope” poster was designed by Shepard Fairey in 2008 during President Obama’s first presidential campaign. Fairey is a well-known street artist.

This poster quickly became a recognisable symbol of the campaign.

Although Fairey’s design was not officially endorsed by the campaign, it had its approval.

In January 2009, the Associated Press revealed that the photograph used as a reference for Fairey’s poster was taken by AP freelancer Mannie Garcia.

The AP demanded compensation for the use of the photo in Fairey’s work. Fairey claimed that his use of the photo fell under fair use and didn’t decrease the value of the original photo.

In January 2011, the artist and the AP reached a private settlement that entailed dividing the profits from the artwork.

Relatable article: Artist copyright infringement cases

Mathew vs. Walt Disney

Mathew, the person suing, claimed that Disney stole the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise from him.

Disney defended itself by showing old theme park art that came before Mathew’s work, proving they had independently created the unique supernatural elements in the franchise.

These elements involve pirates turning into living skeletons under moonlight due to a terrible curse.

Disney successfully demonstrated that it possessed the initial copyright for Pirates of the Caribbean in the legal proceedings.

This was not the first time someone sued Disney over the franchise.

After dropping his second lawsuit, Mathew signed an agreement promising not to bring any more copyright claims against Disney. However, he still filed the current lawsuit.

This situation suggests that the agreement wasn’t taken seriously by the artist and raises concerns about how Disney deals with artists, potentially impacting future collaborations.

Vanilla Ice vs. Queen and David Bowie: The Case of Unauthorised Sampling in “Ice Ice Baby

Unauthorised use of a portion of the bass lines from Queen and David Bowie’s “Under Pressure” was made in Vanilla Ice’s popular song “Ice Ice Baby.”

Queen and Bowie sued Vanilla Ice for copyright infringement, claiming that he used their song without permission.

Vanilla Ice argued that he had changed the bass lines a bit to make them unique, but this defense was not enough.

The case was settled out of court with an undisclosed amount of money paid to Queen and Bowie, and they were given songwriting credit for “Ice Ice Baby.”

Fogerty Wins Self-Plagiarism Lawsuit

This case revolves around John Fogerty. He was a musician and songwriter who used to be part of the band Creedence Clearwater Revival (CCR).

After leaving the band to pursue a solo career, Fogerty wrote and performed a song called “The Old Man Down the Road,” which was later sued by CCR’s record label, Fantasy Records, for allegedly plagiarising CCR’s “Run Through the Jungle.”

In the end, the judge ruled in favor of Fogerty, saying that he couldn’t plagiarise himself. Fogerty then filed a countersuit to recover the money he had spent on the case, which went all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled in Fogerty’s favor, saying that the case went against the original intent of copyright law, which is to protect creativity and encourage new ideas.

Suggested Reading: Basic copyright law

The Rise and Fall of Napster: A Landmark Case in Music Copyright Infringement

In 1999, a young computer whiz named Shawn Fanning created software called Napster.

With Napster, people could easily share and download music files on the internet.

The music industry didn’t like this because people were sharing their music without permission.

In 2000, a famous drummer from Metallica, named Lars Ulrich, sued Napster for doing something called “copyright infringement.”

This was the first time a big artist sued a company that helped people share music, and it caused other big record labels (like A&M) to also sue Napster.

The plaintiffs accused Napster of vicarious copyright infringement , and in 2002, the company was found guilty. As a result, Napster had to shut down, apologise publicly, and pay up to $26 million in damages.

This incident caused many music fans to resent Metallica for their role in Napster’s demise, while others saw it as a turning point in the music industry’s relationship with digital technology.

Rogers vs. Koons

A photograph depicting a couple holding a series of puppies was captured by Art Rogers. He subsequently sold, for commercial purposes, cards and similar merchandise.

Artist Jeff Koons saw the picture while creating an exhibit on ordinary objects and used it to create statues, which he sold for a lot of money.

Rogers sued Koons for copyright infringement, and Koons claimed that it was a parody and therefore fair use.

The court decided that the two images were too similar and that most people could see that it was a copy.

Koons’ defense was deemed invalid as he had the option to utilise an alternative source for his statement instead of replicating Rogers’ work.

Koons had to pay a settlement to Rogers.

Disney vs. Emerson Elementary

In 2020, a PTA event was held at Berkeley’s Emerson Elementary School. At this event, the latest version of The Lion King was screened.

However, Disney’s licensing organisation, which represents the company’s copyrighted content, sent a notice to the school.

The notice stated that it was a copyright infringement and that the school had to pay a penalty of $250 for publicly screening the movie without a license.

This incident gained attention when the school started a crowdfunding campaign to collect such a huge amount.

After the incident, the Chief Executive Officer of Disney sent out a tweet apologising for the penalty. He also contributed to the crowdsourcing campaign.

This situation was problematic for Disney because their characters are mainly intended for children, and all their works are targeted towards them.

When an elementary school screens its movies for children who can’t afford to watch them in theaters, and Disney hits them with a notice, it creates bad publicity for the company.

This could damage their reputation, especially among their target audience. It made Disney look bad because they make movies for children, but then they made a school pay for showing one of their movies to children.

Suggested Reading: Disney copyright infringement

Modern Dog Design vs. Target Corporation

This is the case of Modern Dog Designs, whose graphic design was unlawfully appropriated by Target and Disney.

Designers should encourage free and open competition and respect copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property, according to the American Institute of Graphic Arts (AIGA).

Both businesses are being sued by Modern Dog for copyright violations and plagiarism .

The moral conundrum, where the stealing of the design is judged unethical, is analysed using the virtue theory.

The discussion of the stakeholders impacted by the violation of ethical design use includes the Modern Dog employees, the unfavorable press that Target received, and the effect on Target’s stock price.

All twenty-six dog graphics included in Modern Dog were given extensive copyright protection as a result of the lawsuit’s verdict.

The case establishes a precedent for small design firms to defend their rights and moral principles if any business, no matter how big or little, tries to steal their work.

3 Cases Of Copyright Violation in India

Rg anand v delux films & ors.

In a court case called RG Anand v Delux Films & Ors, the person who made a play called ‘Hum Hindustani’ said that the people who made the movie ‘New Delhi’ copied his play.

He said that they were both about the same idea of “provincialism”. But the court said that copyright only protects how the idea is expressed, not the idea itself .

The court also said that if two things look very similar to an average person, then it might be considered an infringement. However, in this case, the court decided that the play and the movie did not look similar at all.

Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors., High Court of Delhi

The case of Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors. was heard in the High Court of Delhi and involved a request for an interim injunction against the release of films related to Sushant Singh Rajput (SSR).

The plaintiff, SSR’s father, argued that films such as ‘NYAY The Justice,’ ‘Suicide or Murder,’ and ‘Shashank’ violated publicity and privacy rights, the right to a fair trial, and Article 21 of the Constitution .

However, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to make a valid case for violation of celebrity or publicity rights, as the films had appropriate disclaimers and did not use SSR’s image or name.

The Court also noted that celebrity rights may not continue after the celebrity’s death and that the use of public record facts may not result in liability for the defendants.

In addition, the Court stated that a case of defamation is only speculative without access to defamatory content.

Furthermore, the Court found that freedom of expression prevails over Article 21 for public record information and denied the injunction while requesting the defendants to provide an account of any damages that may be compensated.

Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. vs. www.sportsala.tv And Ors., High Court of Delhi

This case involves a suit filed by Sony Pictures Network India Pvt. Ltd. against various defendants, seeking a permanent injunction against the unauthorised reproduction, distribution, broadcasting, and other similar activities related to the cricket matches between India’s tours of England and Sri Lanka.

During the course of the proceedings, Sony Pictures also requested an interim injunction with similar reliefs.

The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction in favor of Sony Pictures, which prohibited certain websites, their redirects, mirrors, and alpha-numeric versions from reproducing, broadcasting, making available, communicating to the public, or distributing the cricket matches.

The Court also issued a dynamic injunction against rogue websites that may engage in such activities.

To prevent copyright infringement, the Court directed ISPs to block the mentioned and other rogue websites and requested that the Government of India to provide appropriate directions.

The interim injunction also covered MSOs and cable operators, and local commissioners were appointed to monitor and take action against any violations of the Court’s orders.

The Court’s orders primarily aimed to protect the copyrights held by Sony Pictures while still permitting non-infringing and fair uses of the content related to the cricket matches between India and England/Sri Lanka.

3 Literary Copyright Infringement Cases

Gopal das vs. jagannath prasad & anr.

Gopal Das and Jagannath Prasad & Anr went to court because they had both written books on the same topic, but Gopal Das claimed that Jagannath Prasad had copied his work since Jagannath’s book was published three years after Gopal Das’s.

Jagannath argued that they had both used the same sources and only the idea was the same, which cannot be protected by copyright .

However, the court found that not only was the idea copied, but also the way it was expressed in the book, including the layout and sequence of the text.

Therefore, the court upheld the decision that Jagannath had infringed on Gopal Das’s copyright and ordered him to pay damages.

E.M. Forster & Ors. vs. A.N. Parasuram – Madras High Court

In this case, an appeal was filed against a trial court’s judgment that determined no copyright infringement had occurred.

The plaintiff, an author, had written a book that was subsequently chosen as a textbook for matriculation exams.

The defendant then published a guidebook aimed at simplifying the content of the textbook for students.

Consequently, the plaintiff sued the defendant for copyright infringement, alleging that the defendant had copied portions of the plaintiff’s book.

The decision of the Court

The court carefully examined both books and discovered that although the defendant had utilised some sections of the plaintiff’s work, they had also added numerous new elements.

These new elements included the defendant’s interpretations and explanations of the original text, which significantly differentiated the guidebook from the plaintiff’s book.

The court ruled that the defendant’s work was a product of their independent creative thought.

The court emphasised that copyright protection should not be employed as a means to stifle the creation of new literary works.

As a result, the trial court’s decision was upheld, and the defendant’s guidebook was not found to infringe on the plaintiff’s copyright.

Chancellor Masters & Scholars vs. Narendra Publishing House – Delhi High Court

In this case, the plaintiff published a mathematics textbook aimed at school students. Subsequently, the defendant released their mathematics guidebook.

The plaintiff sought to stop the distribution of the guidebook, arguing that it was a copy of their work and that they held copyright over the original questions, answers, explanations, etc. presented in their book.

The defendant countered by asserting that this case fell under the ‘fair use’ defense provided by the Indian Copyright Act .

The court, in its decision, examined whether the purpose served by both works was the same.

It found that the plaintiff’s work included elements such as theoretical explanations that were absent in the defendant’s work.

Conversely, the defendant’s work provided a step-by-step guide on how to reach the answers to the questions, which was not available in the plaintiff’s work.

Given the significant differences in the purpose and manner of use for both works, the court determined that the defendant’s work was ‘transformative’ and could not be considered a replication of the plaintiff’s work.

Consequently, the court ruled that there was no copyright infringement in this case.

Related Article: Transformative copyright

Media Copyright Infringement Cases

Newspapers win copyright case against website.

This is a case that involves two newspapers, The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times, and an independent website called Free Republic.

The newspapers claimed that Free Republic was posting their articles without permission, which was a violation of their copyrights.

The Free Republic argued that their posting of the articles, along with comments from users, was a “fair use” of copyrighted material .

They claimed that it allowed for discussion about how the media portrayed the news.

Courts Decision

The court ruled in favor of the newspapers, stating that Free Republic’s posting of news articles verbatim, even with added commentary, did not meet the requirements for a fair use defense .

The court also found that the newspapers’ work was mostly factual and not highly creative, so there was an argument for Free Republic’s fair use defense.

However, the court ultimately ruled that Free Republic’s use of the articles was not “transformative” and deprived the newspapers of the revenue they would have received for their archived articles.

Therefore, the court decided that Free Republic’s actions were a violation of the newspapers’ copyrights .

This case is important because it shows that even though news articles may contain factual information, they are still protected by copyright laws.

It also shows that fair use defenses are not always applicable, especially when the use of copyrighted material is not transformative and deprives the copyright owner of revenue.

Dainik Jagran Wins Copyright Infringement Case Against Telegram

Indian newspaper company Dainik Jagran recently won a legal battle against messaging app Telegram over copyright infringement.

Dainik Jagran had alleged that certain Telegram groups were sharing PDF copies of its newspaper, which had been downloaded for free from the company’s website.

Despite Dainik Jagran informing Telegram of the issue, the app took no action to remove the groups or stop the sharing of the newspaper.

The court found that Dainik Jagran’s copyright had been violated and issued an ad-interim injunction against Telegram.

Telegram was instructed to furnish details about the administrators and members of channels involved in the infringement and to remove such channels.

This case highlights the importance of respecting copyright laws and the rights of content creators.

It also shows that companies like Dainik Jagran have the legal tools to protect their intellectual property from infringement, even in the digital age.

Suggested Reading: Telegram copyright infringement

3 Music Cases of Copyright Infringement

Lana Del Rey vs Radiohead

In 2018, Lana Del Rey claimed that Radiohead was suing her over similarities between their 1992 song “Creep” and her song “Get Free” from her 2017 album “Lust for Life.”

However, Radiohead’s publishers denied taking legal action but requested credit for all writers of “Creep.” An analysis of the two songs revealed rare chord progressions and similar melodies, but the similarities were deemed unintentional.

During a Lollapalooza Brazil gig, Del Rey announced that the dispute was over and that she could now sing “Get Free” whenever she wanted.

Interestingly, Radiohead was previously accused of plagiarism due to similarities between “Creep” and The Hollies’ 1974 song “The Air That I Breathe.”

Radiohead ended up splitting royalties and co-writing credits with Albert Hammond and Mike Hazlewood.

The Chiffons vs. George Harrison

Facts: In 1970, George Harrison, a member of the Beatles, released his solo song “My Sweet Lord,” which became a hit and reached No. 1 on the charts.

However, the song was accused of bearing a striking resemblance to the 1962 hit song “He’s So Fine” by the Chiffons, written by Ronnie Mack.

Harrison’s manager, Alan Klein, attempted to purchase the rights to the original song from Bright Tunes Music Corporation, but they filed a plagiarism lawsuit in 1971, insisting on going to court.

The case took four years to go to trial.

Court’s Decision: In 1976, the court ruled that Harrison had access to the Chiffons’ song due to its widespread popularity, and although he may not have intentionally used it to create his version, he was guilty of “subconscious plagiarism.”

Harrison was ordered to pay $1,599,987 in damages in 1981, a significant amount at the time.

After purchasing Bright Tunes Music, Klein negotiated the sale of the song to Harrison, and the damages were eventually lowered to $587,000.

The case became a precedent for future copyright infringement lawsuits, establishing the concept of subconscious plagiarism as a valid form of infringement.

Chuck Berry vs. John Lennon

In 1969, John Lennon of the Beatles released a song called “Come Together” which was accused of being plagiarised from Chuck Berry’s 1956 hit “You Can’t Catch Me”.

Berry’s publisher, Big Seven Music, filed a lawsuit against Lennon’s publisher, Apple Records.

Berry claimed that Lennon had copied the lyrics and melody of his song and that Lennon had only slowed down the tempo and given it a funkier arrangement.

The lawsuit demanded an injunction to prevent further sale and broadcasting of the song and compensation for damages.

Courts decision:

The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount, and Lennon agreed to record three more songs from the Berry catalog on his next album as part of the settlement.

However, Lennon only recorded two songs, which led to a breach of contract lawsuit filed against him by Big Seven Music’s owner Morris Levy.

The court ruled that Lennon had indeed breached the contract, and ordered him to pay $6,795 in damages.

Later, Levy released some of Lennon’s demo recordings through Big Seven Music without permission, which resulted in Lennon, Capitol Records, and EMI being awarded $109,700 in lost royalties, and Lennon was granted $35,000 in compensation for damages.

The Impact of Copyright Violation Cases

In the creative industry.

Copyright infringement court cases have a significant impact on the creative industry.

They serve as a reminder of the importance of protecting intellectual property and respecting the rights of creators.

These cases also highlight the need for clear and effective copyright laws to prevent the unauthorised use of creative works.

On the Economy

The economy can also be affected by copyright infringement cases.

When creators and copyright holders lose revenue due to infringement, it can lead to a reduction in investment in the creative industries. This, in turn, can hinder innovation and economic growth.

On the Legal System

Copyright infringement cases can place a significant burden on the legal system.

As technology continues to advance, the legal system must adapt to address new forms of infringement and ensure that creators’ rights are adequately protected.

This may require updates to existing laws and the development of new legal frameworks.

The examples of Copyright infringement cases serve as a reminder of the importance of respecting and protecting intellectual property rights.

By understanding copyright law, obtaining necessary permissions, and using copyright-free materials, individuals and businesses can avoid infringement and support the creative industries.

As technology continues to evolve, society must strike a balance between protecting creators’ rights and fostering innovation.

The Most Widely Used Brand Protection Solution

Find, track and remove counterfeit listings and sellers with Bytescare Brand Protection software

What is copyright infringement?

Copyright infringement occurs when someone uses a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright holder, such as copying, distributing, or creating derivative works.

What are some famous copyright infringement cases?

Notable copyright infringement cases include the Napster case, the Robin Thicke and Pharrell case, the Bratz and Barbie, and the Mathew and Walt Disney case.

What is the impact of copyright infringement lawsuit cases on the creative industry?

Copyright infringement cases serve as a reminder of the importance of protecting intellectual property and respecting creators’ rights, ensuring a healthy creative industry.

How can I avoid copyright infringement?

You can avoid copyright violation by understanding copyright law, obtaining necessary permissions from copyright holders, and using copyright-free materials.

What is the primary motivation behind registering for copyright protection, both for individuals and companies?

The main reason for individuals and companies to do copyright registration is to ensure that they have exclusive rights to their creative works and can profit from them without fear of copyright issues and violation.

Further Reading

• Louis Vuitton Copyright Case
• Choreography Copyright Infringement Cases
• Copyright Infringement Insurance Explained
• Copyright Infringement Cases in Books
• Copyright Infringement Statute of Limitations
• 13 Copyright Infringement Cases in India
• Facts About Copyright Infringement
• Innocent Copyright Infringement
• Alert Notice of Copyright Infringement: 4 Preventive Steps

About the Author

Manish jindal.

Manish Jindal is a Co-Founder and COO of Bytescare, with expertise in investment banking and a CFA Charterholder. He actively advises startups, offering guidance in fundraising, team setup, and growth strategies.

Check latest articles from this author:

How to spot a fake profile on plenty of fish, how to spot a fake hinge profile: a comprehensive guide, what is website impersonation.

Ready to Secure Your Online Presence?

You are at the right place, contact us to know more.

Published By Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center

Summaries of fair use cases.

The best way to understand the flexible principle of fair use is to review actual cases decided by the courts. Below are summaries of a variety of fair use cases.

Ignore Heading – Content

Cases involving text.

• Fair use. Publisher Larry Flynt made disparaging statements about the Reverend Jerry Falwell on one page of Hustler magazine. Rev. Falwell made several hundred thousand copies of the page and distributed them as part of a fund-raising effort. Important factors: Rev. Falwell’s copying did not diminish the sales of the magazine (since it was already off the market) and would not adversely affect the marketability of back issues. (Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Moral Majority, Inc., 606 F.Supp. 1526 (C.D. Cal., 1985).)
• Fair use. A biographer of Richard Wright quoted from six unpublished letters and ten unpublished journal entries by Wright. Important factors: No more than 1% of Wright’s unpublished letters were copied and the purpose was informational. (Wright v. Warner Books, Inc., 953 F.2d 731 (2d Cir. 1991).)
• Fair use (mostly). In a case alleging 75 instances of infringement in an educational setting, a district court, proposing a fair use standard based on less than 10% of a book, determined that 70 instances were not infringing. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the 10% standard and emphasized the importance of a flexible case-by-case fair use analysis. The case was remanded to the district court which, in 2016, found the majority of instances to be fair use. Important factors: On remand, the second factor (the scholarly nature of the work) and the fourth factor (impact of the use on the market value) weighed in favor of fair use. Cambridge University Press v. Patton, 769 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. Ga. 2014).
• Fair use. A district court ruled that libraries that provided a search engine company (Google) with books to scan were protected by fair use when the libraries later used the resulting digital scans for three purposes: preservation, a full-text search engine, and electronic access for disabled patrons who could not read the print versions. On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed fair use as to the full-text database (“a quintessentially transformative use”) and as to use of text in formats accessible to print-disabled people (although not a transformative use, it is still considered a fair use based on the Betamax decision), but remanded the issue of fair use for long-term preservation of books. Important factors: As to the full-text database and disabled-access, the Court of Appeals did not find any evidence of financial harm. The Author’s Guild v. Hathitrust, 755 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2014).
• Fair use. A news organization (Bloomberg) tapped into an earnings report phone call made by executives of a foreign corporation (Swatch) to 132 analysts, and posted a recording and transcript of the phone call. Important factors: Bloomberg’s publication of the call was analogous to news reporting (publication of such calls is mandatory for American corporations). Because of that newsworthy purpose, a transformative use was not required. Further, the posting of the entire recording was necessary to fulfill this newsworthy purpose. The Second Circuit stated, “Bloomberg’s overriding purpose here was not to “scoop” Swatch or “supplant the copyright holder’s commercially valuable right of first publication,” but rather simply to deliver newsworthy financial information to American investors and analysts.” Swatch Grp. Mgmt. Servs. Ltd. v. Bloomberg L.P. 742 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2014).
• Fair use. The black comedy, Hand to God, features the famed Abbott and Costello routine “Who’s on First?” The routine is spoken by a repressed character, whose hand puppet persona mocks him for pretending to be the author of the routine. Important factors: Though the use of the routine in the movie and play both elicit laughs, the play’s usage is transformative because the audience must be aware of the original in order to “get the joke.” TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum, No. 15 Civ. 4325 (S.D. N.Y. Dec. 17, 2105).
• Not a fair use. The Nation magazine published excerpts from ex-President Gerald Ford’s unpublished memoirs. The publication in The Nation was made several weeks prior to the date Mr. Ford’s book was to be serialized in another magazine. Important factors: The Nation’s copying seriously damaged the marketability of Mr. Ford’s serialization rights. ( Harper & Row v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985).)
• Not a fair use. A biographer paraphrased large portions of unpublished letters written by the famed author J.D. Salinger. Although people could read these letters at a university library, Salinger had never authorized their reproduction. In other words, the first time that the general public would see these letters was in their paraphrased form in the biography. Salinger successfully sued to prevent publication. Important factors: The letters were unpublished and were the “backbone” of the biography—so much so that without the letters the resulting biography was unsuccessful. In other words, the letters may have been taken more as a means of capitalizing on the interest in Salinger than in providing a critical study of the author. ( Salinger v. Random House, 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1987).)
• Not a fair use. An author copied more than half of an unpublished manuscript to prove that someone was involved in the overthrow of the Iranian government. Important factors: A substantial portion was taken (half of the work) and the work had not been published yet. ( Love v. Kwitny , 772 F.Supp. 1367 (S.D. N.Y., 1989).)
• Not a fair use. A company published a book entitled Welcome to Twin Peaks: A Complete Guide to Who’s Who and What’s What , containing direct quotations and paraphrases from the television show Twin Peaks, as well as detailed descriptions of plots, characters, and setting. Important factors: The amount of the material taken was substantial and the publication adversely affected the potential market for authorized books about the program. ( Twin Peaks v. Publications Int’l, Ltd., 996 F.2d 1366 (2d Cir. 1993).)
• Not a fair use. A company published a book of trivia questions about the events and characters of the Seinfeld television series. The book included questions based upon events and characters in 84 Seinfeld episodes and used actual dialog from the show in 41 of the book’s questions. Important factors: As in the Twin Peaks case, the book affected the owner’s right to make derivative Seinfeld works such as trivia books. ( Castle Rock Entertainment, Inc. v. Carol Publ. Group , 150 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 1998).)
• Not a fair use. In a case involving the author J.D. Salinger, an author wrote a book in which a character known as Mr. C was allegedly modeled after the character of Holden Caulfield, from Salinger’s The Catcher in the Rye . After Salinger sued, the sequel’s author claimed that his work was a parody, an argument rejected by the district court. The court determined that fair use would not succeed as a defense and granted Salinger’s request for a preliminary injunction. (The Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the fair use analysis but reversed the case regarding the standard used for the preliminary injunction.) Important factors: Aging the character and placing him in the present day does not add something new, particularly since the character’s personality remains intact as derived from the original work. ( Salinger v. Colting , 641 F.Supp.2d 250 (S.D. N.Y. 2009).)
• Not a fair use. Although the creation of a Harry Potter encyclopedia was determined to be “slightly transformative” (because it made the Harry Potter terms and lexicons available in one volume), this transformative quality was not enough to justify a fair use defense. Important factors: An important factor in the court’s decision was the extensive verbatim use of text from the Harry Potter books. ( Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. v. RDR Books , 575 F.Supp.2d 513 (S.D. N.Y. 2008).)

Artwork, Visual Arts, and Audiovisual Cases

• Fair use. In a lawsuit commonly known as the Betamax case, the Supreme Court determined that the home videotaping of a television broadcast was a fair use. This was one of the few occasions when copying a complete work (for example, a complete episode of the Kojak television show) was accepted as a fair use. Evidence indicated that most viewers were “time-shifting” (taping in order to watch later) and not “library building” (collecting the videos in order to build a video library). Important factors: The Supreme Court reasoned that the “delayed” system of viewing did not deprive the copyright owners of revenue. ( Universal City Studios v. Sony Corp., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).)
• Fair use. The makers of a movie biography of Muhammad Ali used 41 seconds from a boxing match film in their biography. Important factors: A small portion of film was taken and the purpose was informational. ( Monster Communications, Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting Sys. Inc. , 935 F.Supp. 490 (S.D. N.Y., 1996).)
• Fair use. A search engine’s practice of creating small reproductions (“thumbnails”) of images and placing them on its own website (known as “inlining”) did not undermine the potential market for the sale or licensing of those images. Important factors: The thumbnails were much smaller and of much poorer quality than the original photos and served to help the public access the images by indexing them. ( Kelly v. Arriba-Soft , 336 F.3d. 811 (9th Cir. 2003).)
• Fair use. It was a fair use, not an infringement, to reproduce Grateful Dead concert posters within a book. Important factors: The Second Circuit focused on the fact that the posters were reduced to thumbnail size and reproduced within the context of a timeline. ( Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. , 448 F.3d 605 (2d Cir. 2006).)
• Fair use. A Google search engine did not infringe a subscription-only website (featuring nude models) by reproducing thumbnails. Important factors: The court of appeals aligned this case with Kelly v. Arriba-Soft (above), which also permitted thumbnails under fair use principles. ( Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007).)
• Fair use. A publisher of monster magazines from the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s sued the creator and publisher of a book, Famous Monster Movie Art of Basil Gogos . (Gogos created covers for the magazines.) The book publisher had obtained licenses from the artist directly, but not from the magazine publisher who claimed copyright under work-made-for-hire principles. The district court determined that the use was transformative. Important factors: The use was for a biography/retrospective of the artist, not simply a series of covers of magazines devoted to movie monsters. In addition, the magazines were no longer in print, and the covers amounted to only one page of the magazine, not the “heart” of the magazine. ( Warren Publishing Co. v. Spurlock d/b/a Vanguard Productions , 645 F.Supp.2d 402, (E.D. Pa., 2009).)
• Fair use. A seven-second clip from the Ed Sullivan TV show was used in a staged musical history (The Jersey Boys) based on the career of the musical group, the Four Seasons. Important factors: The use was transformative. (“Being selected by Ed Sullivan to perform on his show was evidence of the band’s enduring prominence in American music,” the judge wrote in the ruling. “By using it as a biographical anchor, [the defendant] put the clip to its own transformative ends.”) Further, the use caused no financial harm to the copyright owners of the show. SOFA Entertainment, Inc. v. Dodger Productions, Inc. , No. 2:08-cv-02616 (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2013).
• Fair use. The painter, Richard Prince, created a collage using—in one collage—35 images from a photographer’s book. The artist also used 28 of the photos in 29 additional paintings. In some instances the full photograph was used while in others, only the main subject of the photo was used. Important factors: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that to qualify as a transformative use, Prince’s work did not have to comment on the original photographer’s work (or on popular culture). The Court of Appeals concluded that 25 of Prince’s artworks qualified as fair use and remanded the case to determine the status of the remaining five artworks. Cariou v. Prince , U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, No. 11-1197.
• Fair use. The re-creation of three scenes from the film Deep Throat was a fair use when made for a biographical film about actress Linda Lovelace. Important factors: The re-created scenes were used in a non-pornographic film biography (with no nudity) about an actress who ultimately railed against pornography. This use illustrated a strong transformative purpose and demonstrated that the copyright owner of Deep Throat would be unlikely to lose revenue from this non-pornographic use. Arrow Productions, LTD v. The Weinstein Company LLC , 2014 WL 4211350 (S.D. N.Y. Aug. 25, 2014).
• Fair Use. A modified photo of a Wisconsin mayor was reproduced on a Tshirt and used to raise money for an event opposed by the mayor. Important factors: The Seventh Circuit was primarily persuaded by the level of alteration—the photo was posterized, background removed, text added, and a lime green outline featuring the mayor’s smile remained. The resulting image of the mayor, the court stated, “can’t be copyrighted.” Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation LLC , 766 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 2014).
• Fair use. A TV clipping database made it possible for users to search news broadcasts using keywords, then view a portion of the curated news clip containing those keywords. The court determined that the storage, indexing, excerpting, and reproduction of the clips was a fair use. Important factors: The district court emphasized the purpose of the database, which was unique and transformative. The court also dismissed the “very small possible impact” of lost revenues. Fox News v. TVEYES, Inc. , 43 F. Supp. 3d 379 (S.D. N.Y. 2014).
• Fair use. A disgruntled former commercial tenant (Chevaldina) used an unflattering photo of her former landlord (Katz) in 25 critical blog posts. Katz purchased the copyright in the photo and sued Chevaldina for infringement. Important factors: The use was considered noncommercial, and transformative because, “in the context of the blog post’s surrounding commentary, Chevaldina used Katz’s purportedly ‘ugly’ and ‘compromising’ appearance to ridicule and satirize his character.” Katz v. Chevaldina , No. 14-14525 (11th Cir. 2015).
• Fair use. In a battle over the use of viral videos, a humor program, Equals Three , reproduced viral videos from another source, Jukin Video, and commented on them, often reproducing the clips in their entirety. Important factors: The court determined that in the case of 18 of the 19 videos, Equals Three used no more than necessary of each video for purposes of its commentary; and that the jokes and commentary added something new to the viral videos. Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc. , 14-09041 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015).
• Fair use. An author created a parody of the surfer-thriller Point Break. The court found the work to be sufficiently transformative to justify fair use of the underlying movie materials. At issue in this case was the more novel question of whether the resulting parody could itself be protected under copyright. Important factors: The Second Circuit held that if the author of the unauthorized work provides sufficient original material and is otherwise qualified under fair use rules, the resulting work will be protected under copyright. Keeling v. Hars , No. 13-694 (2d Cir. 2015).
• Not a fair use. A television news program copied one minute and 15 seconds from a 72-minute Charlie Chaplin film and used it in a news report about Chaplin’s death. Important factors: The court felt that the portions taken were substantial and part of the “heart” of the film. ( Roy Export Co. Estab. of Vaduz v. Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. , 672 F.2d 1095, 1100 (2d Cir. 1982).)
• Not a fair use. A television station’s news broadcast used 30 seconds from a four-minute copyrighted videotape of the 1992 Los Angeles beating of Reginald Denny. Important factors: The use was commercial, took the heart of the work, and affected the copyright owner’s ability to market the video. ( Los Angeles News Service v. KCAL-TV Channel 9 , 108 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 1997).)
• Not a fair use. A poster of a “church quilt” was used in the background of a television series for 27 seconds. Important factors: The court was influenced by the prominence of the poster, its thematic importance for the set decoration of a church, and the fact that it was a conventional practice to license such works for use in television programs. ( Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc. , 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir. 1997).)
• Not a fair use. The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) licensed the use of a photo­graph of the Korean War veterans’ memorial sculpture for a postage stamp, but failed to obtain permission from the sculptor who held copyright in the underlying three-dimensional work. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the use of the underlying sculpture depicted in the photograph was not permitted under fair use principles. Important factors: It was not enough to transfer the work from three dimensions to two dimensions (despite the creative use of photography and snow in conjunction with the photos). ( Gaylord v. United States , 595 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2010).)

Internet Cases

• Fair use. The Washington Post used three brief quotations from Church of Scientology texts posted on the Internet. Important factors: Only a small portion of the work was excerpted and the purpose was for news commentary. ( Religious Technology Center v. Pagliarina , 908 F.Supp. 1353 (E.D. Va., 1995).)
• Fair use. Displaying a cached website in search engine results is a fair use and not an infringement. A “cache” refers to the temporary storage of an archival copy—often a copy of an image of part or all of a website. With cached technology it is possible to search Web pages that the website owner has permanently removed from display. An attorney/author sued Google when the company’s cached search results provided end users with copies of copyrighted works. The court held that Google did not infringe. Important factors: Google was considered passive in the activity—users chose whether to view the cached link. In addition, Google had an implied license to cache Web pages since owners of websites have the ability to turn on or turn off the caching of their sites using tags and code. In this case, the attorney/author knew of this ability and failed to turn off caching, making his claim against Google appear to be manufactured. ( Field v. Google Inc. , 412 F.Supp.2d 1106 (D. Nev., 2006).)
• Fair use. A real estate blog copied the first eight sentences from a news­paper article. Important factors. The blogger had copied only eight sentences and had not copied the “valuable” section (the commentary included with the article), and the court did not believe that the copying would affect the market for the article (the third and fourth fair use factors). Righthaven LLC v. Realty One Group, Inc. , No. 2:10-cv-LRH-PAL, 2010 WL 4115413 (D. Nev., October 19, 2010).
• Fair use. A nonprofit organization posted a newspaper article about police discrimination on its website. The newspaper assigned its right in the article to a third party, Righthaven, which filed the lawsuit. Important factors. The court’s reasoning was influenced by the fact that Righthaven had acquired the copyright and was not in the newspaper business (it appeared to be in the “litigation business”). For that reason, the court reasoned that the nonprofit’s use was transformative because its purpose was to educate the public about immigration issues, whereas Righthaven had no such purpose for the article (because it was not in the news business). And also, because Righthaven was not in the news business, it could show no harm from the defendant’s dissemination of the article. Righthaven LLC v. JAMA , No. 2:2010-cv-01322, 2011 WL 1541613 (D. Nev., April 22, 2011).
• Fair use. A user of an online political forum posted a five-sentence excerpt from a newspaper article with a link back to the newspaper’s website. Important factors: The use was quantitatively small and did not cause the newspaper financial harm. In addition, the online political forum was permitted to use the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Righthaven LLC v. Democratic Underground , No. 2:10-cv-01356-RLH (GWF).
• Fair use. Google made digital copies of millions of books submitted to it by libraries, scanned them and made them available to search through its Google Books service, so that users could—for free—identify relevant words, terms, or snippets from the scanned text. Google also allowed participating libraries to retain the copies they submitted. Important factors: Google’s digitization was deemed a transformative use because it provided limited information about the books without allowing users more complete access to the works. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc. , No. 13-4829 (2d Cir. 2015).

Ignore Heading – Sub table content

• Not a fair use. Several individuals without church permission posted entire publications of the Church of Scientology on the Internet. Important factors: Fair use is intended to permit the borrowing of portions of a work, not complete works. ( Religious Technology Center v. Lerma , 40 U.S.P.Q.2d 1569 (E.D. Va., 1996).)

Music Cases

• Fair use. A person running for political office used 15 seconds of his opponent’s campaign song in a political ad. Important factors: A small portion of the song was used and the use was for purposes of political debate. ( Keep Thomson Governor Comm. v. Citizens for Gallen Comm. , 457 F.Supp. 957 (D. N.H., 1978).)
• Fair use. A television film crew, covering an Italian festival in Manhattan, recorded a band playing a portion of a copyrighted song “Dove sta Zaza.” The music was replayed during a news broadcast. Important factors: Only a portion of the song was used, it was incidental to the news event, and it did not result in any actual damage to the composer or to the market for the work. ( Italian Book Corp., v. American Broadcasting Co. , 458 F.Supp. 65 (S.D. N.Y., 1978).)
• Not a fair use. Downloading songs is not a fair use. A woman was sued for copyright infringement for downloading 30 songs using peer-to-peer file sharing software. She argued that her activity was a fair use because she was downloading the songs to determine if she wanted to later buy them. Important factors: Since numerous sites, such as iTunes, permit listeners to sample and examine portions of songs without downloading, the court rejected this “sampling” defense. ( BMG Music v. Gonzalez , 430 F.3d 888 (7th Cir. 2005).)
• Not a fair use. A defendant in a music file sharing case could not claim a fair use defense since he had failed to provide evidence that his copying of music files involved any transformative use (an essential element in proving fair use). Important factors: The court held that the defendant was confusing “‘fairness’ and ‘fair use’—in the end, fair use is not a referendum on fairness in the abstract …” ( Capitol Records Inc. v. Alaujan , 2009 WL 5873136 (D. Mass., 7/27/09).)

Parody Cases

• Fair use. Comedians on the late-night television show Saturday Night Live parodied the song “I Love New York” using the words “I Love Sodom.” Only the words “I Love” and four musical notes were taken from the original work. Important factors: The Saturday Night Live version of the jingle did not compete with or detract from the original song. ( Elsmere Music, Inc. v. National Broadcasting Co. , 482 F.Supp. 741 (S.D. N.Y.), aff’d 632 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1980).)
• Fair use. The composers of the song “When Sunny Gets Blue” claimed that their song was infringed by “When Sonny Sniffs Glue,” a 29-second parody that altered the original lyric line and borrowed six bars of the song. A court determined this parody was excused as a fair use. Important factors: Only 29 seconds of music were borrowed (not the complete song). ( Fisher v. Dees , 794 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1986).) (Note: As a general rule, parodying more than a few lines of a song lyric is unlikely to be excused as a fair use. Performers such as Weird Al Yankovic, who earn a living by humorously modifying hit songs, seek permission of the songwriters before recording their parodies.)
• Fair use. The rap group 2 Live Crew borrowed the opening musical tag and the words (but not the melody) from the first line of the song “Pretty Woman” (“Oh, pretty woman, walking down the street”). The rest of the lyrics and the music were different. Important factors: The group’s use was transformative and borrowed only a small portion of the original song. The 2 Live Crew version was essentially a different piece of music; the only similarity was a brief musical opening part and the opening line. (Note: The rap group had initially sought to pay for the right to use portions of the song but were rebuffed by the publisher, who did not want “Pretty Woman” used in a rap song.) ( Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music , 510 U.S. 569 (1994).)
• Fair use. A movie company used a photo of a naked pregnant woman onto which it superimposed the head of actor Leslie Nielsen. The photo was a parody using similar lighting and body positioning of a famous photograph taken by Annie Leibovitz of the actress Demi Moore for the cover of Vanity Fair magazine. Important factors: The movie company’s use was transformative because it imitated the photographer’s style for comic effect or ridicule. ( Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. , 137 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. N.Y. 1998).)
• Fair use. A pro-life video organization created two antiabortion videos by borrowing video clips from a pro-choice video and juxtaposing them with actual abortion footage. Important factors: The court characterized the pro-life videos as parodies despite the fact they did not meet the classic definition of a parody—something that humorously mimics or ridicules another’s work. In a unique holding, the court held that a parody need not be humorous, but may merely comment on, or criticize the original. Northland Family Planning Clinic v. Center for Bio-Ethical Reform , No. SACV 11-731 JVS (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2012).
• Not a fair use. An artist created a cover for a New Yorker magazine that presented a humorous view of geography through the eyes of a New York City resident. A movie company later advertised their film Moscow on the Hudson using a similar piece of artwork with similar elements. The artist sued and a court ruled that the movie company’s poster was not a fair use. Important factors: Why is this case different from the previous case involving the Leslie Nielsen/Annie Leibovitz parody? In the Leibovitz case, the use was a true parody, characterized by a juxtaposition of imagery that actually commented on or criticized the original. The Moscow on the Hudson movie poster did not create a parody; it simply borrowed the New Yorker’s parody (the typical New York City resident’s geographical viewpoint that New York City is the center of the world). ( Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. , 663 F.Supp. 706 (S.D. N.Y., 1987).)
• Not a fair use. An author mimicked the style of a Dr. Seuss book while retelling the facts of the O.J. Simpson murder trial in The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the book was a satire, not a parody, because the book did not poke fun at or ridicule Dr. Seuss. Instead, it merely used the Dr. Seuss characters and style to tell the story of the murder. Important factors: The author’s work was nontransformative and commercial. ( Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc. , 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997).)

Comments are closed.

UCI IP, Arts & Tech Clinic

Intellectual Property, Arts, & Technology Clinic

A Deep Dive into the Last Two Years in Fair Use

February 26, 2021 by IPAT Clinic Staff

Update: On March 15, Copyright Lately published an interview with Professor Jack Lerner about the report. Read the interview here .

Update #2: We have posted all cases reviewed in our report on fair use cases from 2019-2021! You can find the links to the cases in our table summarizing the abstracts . (April 16, 2021)

We are excited to celebrate Fair Use Week with a new IPAT Clinic report: Fair Use Jurisprudence 2019-2021: A Comprehensive Review .

• Download the report
• View an online table of cases discussed in the report

Copyright covers a huge range of expressive activity and is automatic. Just about anyone who wants to do more than read, watch, or use a work relies on the doctrine of fair use in order to avoid liability for copyright infringement. The Supreme Court has referred to fair use as a sort of safety valve that provides breathing space allow copyright to coexist with freedom of expression. And it is an evolving doctrine; disputes concerning fair use are constantly working their way through the American legal system, but the vast majority of cases don’t make the news despite their importance to creative expression and innovation.

At the UCI Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic, we work with independent filmmakers to make sure that when they do need to make fair use, they can do so responsibly, appropriately, and safely. Over the past couple of years, our Filmmaker Counseling team began to hear of a rising number of fair use opinions coming out of the federal courts, and we decided to embark on an exhaustive study of recent fair use decisions in copyright infringement cases. In total, we identified and analyzed seventy-two opinions issued by federal courts and made available on Westlaw or Lexis between January 1, 2019, and February 25, 2021. In our report, we provide abstracts of 72 opinions along with some commentary on selected cases. We have also prepared a table of these cases, which is available at https://ipat.law.uci.edu/recent-fair-use-cases/ .

We were surprised by the sheer volume of fair use opinions, but our analysis yielded a few interesting insights.

First, there are a lot of fair use cases involving photographs. Of the 72 opinions made available on Lexis or Westlaw, over half were about photographs—37 in total. Of these, 22 were from either repeat plaintiffs David Oppenheimer (2) and Larry Philpot (1) or from plaintiffs’ attorneys Richard Leibowitz (16) and Higbee and Associates (3) who file a high volume of cases. (The question of whether these repeat filers are a problem is for another report; we note, however, that three separate judges in this set of opinions made reference to misconduct by Mr. Liebowitz. In any event, it is quite clear that the judicial opinions referenced in this report represent a tiny fraction of the photography cases being filed annually in recent years.)

What do these cases mean for the doctrine of fair use? The results are mixed. Some suits never should have been brought because the fair use was so clear—while in other cases, the defendant perhaps should have thought twice before asserting a fair use defense. Also, social media can complicate the analysis; the judges in the Southern District of New York are having an interesting conversation across cases about what it means to embed an Instagram post (presumably licensed via Instagram’s API terms of use) versus just displaying the picture used in the post.

Second, there were very few cases dealing with technology. Aside from a case involving a long-running dispute between Oracle and Rimini, Rimini St. v. Oracle Int’l Corp. , 473 F. Supp. 3d 1158 (D. Nev. 2020), and a case involving Zillow, there were almost no reported fair use cases dealing with technology issues—the last two years have not seen a Sega v Genesis or an Author’s Guild v. Google . Of course, we are awaiting the Supreme Court decision in Google v. Oracle , but the last twenty-six months have been surprisingly quiet.

We hope you find this report useful and interesting; it is freely available to use and share under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License .

We will be posting additional analysis to this space in the coming weeks. Stay tuned!

Jack Lerner Director, UCI Intellectual Property, Arts, and Technology Clinic

Luke Hartman UCI Law J.D. Candidate, 2021

Jordin Wilcher UCI Law J.D. Candidate, 2021

Cross-posted with Fair Use Week at https://www.fairuseweek.org/fair-use-jurisprudence-2019-2021/

Copyright Alliance

• Who We Represent
• Community Partners
• Statements to Congress
• Agency and Other Filings
• Amicus Briefs
• Position Papers
• Copyright Act
• Copyright Regulations
• Copyright Compendium
• Copyright Cases
• Copyright Legislation
• Government Reports
• Congressional Hearings
• International Agreements
• Find a Copyright Attorney
• Creator Assistance Directory
• Find a Copyright Owner
• Copyright Facts by State
• Report Piracy
• Jobs in Copyright
• IPDC Program
• Press Releases
• Media Center
• Trending Topics
• Event Calendar
• Copyright Law Explained
• AI and Copyright
• CCB Explained
• Copyright Law by Industry
• Copyright Courses
• Join the Alliance
• Creator Voices
• Copyright Alliance Policy Alert
• AI Copyright Alert

Copyright Cases in 2023: A Year in Review

Copyright enthusiasts knew that 2023 would bring with it a highly anticipated decision in one of the biggest fair use cases in decades: Andy Warhol Foundation v. Lynn Goldsmith . Indeed, the Supreme Court’s opinion—whether you agree with it not—is nothing short of a lodestar in the world of copyright law that will influence fair use cases for years. But while Warhol grabbed all the headlines, there were a few other major copyright decisions that signaled how the law will be applied to key issues like deposit requirements, the protection of safety codes and standards, and the unauthorized scanning and distribution of copyrighted works. This blog will discuss those cases and their impact. But first, Warhol .

Landmark Warhol Decision Reins in Transformative Fair Use

On May 18, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2  opinion  written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, found that the purpose and character of Andy Warhol Foundation’s (AWF) use of Lynn Goldsmith’s photograph did not favor a fair use defense under the first fair use factor. For a full background on the facts and procedure of the case, see this  earlier blog . The landmark decision reaffirmed a critical tenet of the fair use doctrine: that whether a use is transformative not only doesn’t control a fair use determination, but it also doesn’t control a factor one analysis. Sotomayor’s thoughtful examination of the boundaries of fair use—paired with a recognition of the importance of copyright owners’ right to prepare derivative works—rightfully reined in expansive notions of transformative use by lower courts and others who have misinterpreted the doctrine as first handed down by the Court in  Campbell v. Acuff Rose Music  almost 30 years ago.

While some commentors claim the decision is narrow because it addresses a specific situation—use of images for licensing to magazines—the opinion’s (and concurrence’s) affirmation of the limited weight of transformativeness and significance of the derivative works right is anything but narrow. The fact that the Court did not, as a matter of procedure, opine on other uses that were not at issue in the case doesn’t mean its analysis is inapplicable to other uses. For example, it’s not hard to see how the Court’s treatment of transformative use could impact artificial intelligence developers’ fair use claims related to their unauthorized copying and ingestion of copyrighted works for training purposes. And while many generative AI infringement cases are still in their early stages, AI developers who rely heavily on transformative use arguments to support such unauthorized copying and ingestion may be in for a Warhol -based reality check. 

Ultimately, Sotomayor’s opinion swings the fair use pendulum back to its proper position, confirming the intended context and limited application of transformative use within factor one. This reaffirmation of the proper weight that should be afforded to transformative use shouldn’t come as a surprise, as other courts have recently begun to recognize that expansive notions transformative use are a “high-water mark.”  Warhol  assures us that the high water is now receding and will hopefully settle at the level that the Supreme Court intended.

Internet Archive’s Manufactured “Lending” Theory Rejected

In March, the District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a motion for summary judgment filed by a group of book publishers in their case against the Internet Archive (IA) for copyright infringement related to the scanning of tens of thousands of literary works and distribution of digital copies to the public for free. The case was brought back in 2020, when four book publishers challenged the Internet Archive’s contrived theory of controlled digital lending (“CDL”) that it argued allowed it to scan and distribute digital copies of books to the public without a license.

The court’s order denounced Internet Archive’s CDL theory as clear copyright infringement and unequivocally rejected Internet Archive’s fair use defense. Considering the first fair use factor, the court explained that “[t]here is nothing transformative about IA’s copying and unauthorized lending of the Works in Suit” because it did not alter the purpose and character of the books “with new expression, meaning or message.” In the court’s view, digitally reproducing and distributing the books plainly violated the publishers’ exclusive rights.

The court also found that the three remaining factors clearly favored the publishers. Regarding the nature of the works, the court explained that creative works such as the fiction books involved in the case are at “the core of copyright’s protective purposes,” and even the accompanying nonfiction books have creative value in the “subjective descriptions and portraits … whose power lies in the author’s individualized expression.” Addressing factor three, the court found that Internet Archive copied and disseminated the entirety of the books at issue. Finally, considering the fourth factor, the court explained that the publishers were deprived of benefiting from a “thriving ebook licensing market for libraries” as a result of Internet Archive’s rote, unlicensed copying and lending of their works.

The Internet Archive recently filed an opening brief in its appeal of the decision, but it’s hard to see how it could convince a court to embrace such a thoroughly rejected justification for infringement. However, it’s not surprising that the Internet Archive is eager to challenge the adverse decision, given that it is facing a similar lawsuit related to the unauthorized digitization and distribution of sound recordings owned by Universal Music Group and other record labels.

Protection of Safety Standards and Codes Suffers Setback

In September, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an opinion in American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) v. PublicResource.org , holding that the noncommercial distribution of privately-authored safety codes and standards that are incorporated by reference into law qualifies as fair use. The case was initially brought in 2013 by ASTM and other Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) against PublicResource.org, an organization that digitized and posted to the internet many of the SDOs works without authorization. In 2017, the District Court for the District of Columbia found that PublicResource.org’s activities did not qualify as fair use and ordered the posted materials to be taken down from its website. However, over the next five years, the case was appealed, reversed and remanded, and eventually the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed a decision that PublicResource.org’s reproduction and dissemination of most of the works at issue qualified as fair use.

Unfortunately, the court misapplied the fair use factors and the decision disregards the harm to existing and potential markets for the works of SDOs. In an amicus brief filed in support of ASTM, we explain that allowing PublicResource.org to copy and distribute the copyrighted works of SDOs—which they invest much time and resources into developing—would effectively manufacture a carve-out from the protections guaranteed by copyright law. While we support making federal, state, and local laws accessible to the public, our brief points out that SDOs already make these codes available, and the fact that they are incorporated into laws does not strip them of copyright protection.

Ultimately, only Congress is empowered to decide whether and under what circumstances exceptions to copyright law can be expanded. The type of privately-authored standards at issue in the case have been around for over a hundred years, and never has Congress said that they shouldn’t enjoy the full protections of the Copyright Act. In fact, in 2023 a bill was introduced by a bipartisan group of Senators that would ensure safety standards do not lose copyright protection when they are incorporated into law by name, as long as they are accessible for free on a publicly available website. The Copyright Alliance supports the Pro Codes Act and looks forward to its reintroduction in 2024.

Deposit Requirement Found to be Unconstitutional

In August, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a 2021 district court decision that held the Copyright Act’s section 407’s deposit requirement was not an unconstitutional taking, but rather a voluntary exchange in return for the benefit of federal copyright protection.  The case stemmed from a 2018 dispute between a small book publisher, Valancourt, and the U.S. Copyright Office, which demanded that Valancourt deposit 341 works that it published through its print-on-demand service under section 407’s mandatory deposit rule. Valancourt sued the Copyright Office soon after, seeking to enjoin the federal government from demanding deposit copies and alleging the mandatory deposit provisions are an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment and an unconstitutional burden on free speech in violation of the First Amendment.

The Court of Appeals’ August decision in favor of Valancourt only addressed the Copyright Office’s demand for physical copies of works in the context of the Fifth Amendment, finding that section 407, as applied by the Copyright Office, constituted an unconstitutional taking. Reviewing the role and evolution of the mandatory deposit requirement in U.S. copyright law, the court found that the current mandatory deposit requirement was not tethered to any benefit in exchange for the submission of physical deposits, because copyright protections automatically vest at fixation.

One unresolved question is whether copyright owners van voluntarily disavow or abandon their copyrights in order to avoid the deposit requirement. The court declined to resolve the issue but explained that existing authority and Office guidelines did not make clear that such a theory could be applied for parties to avoid the mandatory deposit requirement. The court also declined to address Valancourt’s First Amendment claims because it concluded that Valancourt would prevail anyway on the Fifth Amendment claim.

In late 2023, the Court of Appeals rejected the Copyright Office’s petition for an  en banc  rehearing of the case. While it seems the case is over for now, the decision will surely impact the development of future Copyright Office deposit policies and the Library of Congress’s collection of physical versions of copyrighted works.

Looking Ahead

2024 will undoubtedly be another important year for copyright litigation, as the many lawsuits brought by creators and copyright owners against AI developers will progress and lead to potentially game-changing decisions. Outside of AI, the cases against Internet Archive may finally put to rest the manufactured “controlled digital lending” theory that has already been recognized as having no legitimate foundation in the law. The Supreme Court will also take on the discovery rule in Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy , which may resolve a circuit split over what constitutes a timely copyright claim. And, of course, the impact of Warhol will begin to take shape, as courts apply the Supreme Court’s landmark confirmation of the limited nature of transformative fair use. 

If you aren’t already a member of the Copyright Alliance, you can join today by completing our Individual Creator Members  membership form ! Members gain access to monthly newsletters, educational webinars, and so much more — all for free!

get blog updates

Top of page

Historic Court Cases That Helped Shape Scope of Copyright Protections

September 9, 2020

Posted by: Anandashankar Mazumdar

Share this post:

As the Copyright Office celebrates its 150th birthday, we can look back more than 240 years through the history of copyright protections in the United States to see how the law has changed in response to changing technologies and economics.

The authors of the U.S. Constitution believed that copyright was important enough to explicitly grant the federal government the power to grant authors the exclusive right to their writings.

When the first U.S. Congress convened in 1789, it put enactment of the country’s first Copyright Act on its agenda. The Copyright Act of 1790 extended copyright protections to “maps, charts, and books.” But copyright protection in 2020 covers many more types of creative expression.

The federal courts have been crucial in looking at creative media and setting the boundaries of what is protected and what isn’t. This is a look back at some of the most important court rulings on what is and isn’t protectable throughout the years under U.S. copyright law.

These cases reflect some of the landmarks for American courts for defining the scope of copyright protection: (1) Is a system of accounting and its ledgers protected? (2) Is a photograph protected when the law doesn’t explicitly mention photographs? (3) Is an advertisement protected? And (4) Is a creative work incorporated into a useful article protected?

Bookkeeping Ledgers Play Key Role in Limiting Protection to Expression

Baker v. selden , 101 u.s. 99 (1879).

In 1859, Charles Selden registered a copyright interest in a book called Selden’s Condensed Ledger, or Book-keeping Simplified. The book described a system of bookkeeping. Most of the book comprised a series of sample bookkeeping forms, accompanied by a few hundred words of explanation. Over the years, Selden issued several versions of this book, but struggled to earn sales.

In 1867, W.C.M. Baker published a very similar book, one which was much more successful. Selden’s widow sued Baker, alleging copyright infringement. The case went to the Supreme Court, where Justice Joseph P. Bradley ruled against Selden, setting forth the principle that became known as the Idea/Expression Dichotomy.

Under this doctrine, copyright law protects only the specific expression of an idea, not the idea itself. Other kinds of law, mainly patent law, might extend protection to an idea, such as a method or process of doing something, but not copyright law.

The specific words Selden used to express his ideas about bookkeeping could be subject to a copyright claim, but the actual bookkeeping method he was describing could not.

This principle survives today in section 102(b) of the Copyright Act, which says, “in no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”

Photography Is Creative, Not Just a Mechanical Process

Burrow-giles lithographic co. v. sarony , 111 u.s. 53 (1884).

In 1882, photographer Napoleon Sarony took a photograph of Irish novelist and playwright Oscar Wilde, and titled it Oscar Wilde No. 18. The Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. started selling lithographs of Oscar Wilde No. 18 without Sarony’s permission and Sarony sued, alleging copyright infringement.

Sarony’s claim was filed under section 4952 of the Copyright Act of 1865, which extended copyright protection to photographs. But Burrow-Giles argued that this statute was unconstitutional. Article I, section 8, clause 8, of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to grant to “authors” exclusive right in their “writings.”

According to Burrow-Giles, a photographer wasn’t an author and a photograph wasn’t a writing, so the statute exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority.

But Justice Samuel Freeman Miller disagreed, pointing out that some of the people who had worked directly with the framers of the Constitution and had attended the Constitutional Convention had been members of Congress that extended protections to maps, charts, etchings, and engravings. Thus, the framers couldn’t have meant “writings” to have such a narrow definition.

The court also rejected the argument that photography was a mechanical process that showed no artistic expression. Some photographs might be mechanical. But in this case, Sarony had exercised artistic choices “by posing the said Oscar Wilde in front of the camera, selecting and arranging the costume, draperies, and other various accessories in said photograph, arranging the subject so as to present graceful outlines, arranging and disposing the light and shade, suggesting and evoking the desired expression, and from such disposition, arrangement, or representation, made entirely by the plaintiff, he produced the picture in suit.” This made the photograph an “original work of art” and qualified it as a member of the class of things that the Constitution allows Congress to protect.

Advertisements are Also Expressive, Even if Commercial

Bleistein v. donaldson lithographing co. , 188 u.s. 239 (1903).

The Great Wallace Show, a traveling circus, hired the Courier Lithographing Co. to make several chromolithographs and print advertising posters. Wallace used up the posters that Courier and its employee George Bleistein had made and went to the Donaldson Lithographing Co. to copy three of the posters, which depicted ballet dancers, acrobats, and other circus performers.

Courier sued, alleging infringement. When the case went up on appeal, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit—referring to the posters as “tawdry pictures”—said that these advertising posters were not eligible for copyright protection, either under the Copyright Act of 1870 or under the U.S. Constitution.

“They are neither ‘pictorial illustrations’ nor ‘works connected with the fine arts,’” according to the Sixth Circuit.

At the Supreme Court, however, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. rejected this view “[T]he act however construed, does not mean that ordinary posters are not good enough to be considered within its scope,” the court said.

The commercial nature of the posters also didn’t preclude protection. “Certainly works are not the less connected with the fine arts because their pictorial quality attracts the crowd and therefore gives them a real use—if use means to increase trade and to help to make money. A picture is none the less a picture and none the less a subject of copyright that it is used for an advertisement. And if pictures may be used to advertise soap, or the theatre, or monthly magazines, as they are, they may be used to advertise a circus.”

A judge shouldn’t be in the position of evaluating artistic merit, the court said, for fear of stifling new developments in art. “It would be a dangerous undertaking for persons trained only to the law to constitute themselves final judges of the work of pictorial illustrations, outside of the narrowest and most obvious limits. At the one extreme some works of genius would be sure to miss appreciation. Their very novelty would make them repulsive until the public had learned the new language in which their author spoke.”

“At the other end, copyright would be denied to pictures which appealed to a public less educated than the judge. Yet if they command the interest of any public, they have a commercial value—it would be bold to say that they have not an aesthetic and educational value—and the taste of any public is not to be treated with contempt.”

These concepts were later elaborated on in later cases, in which the Supreme Court specified that a work need show only “a modicum of creativity” in order to qualify for copyright protection.

Is It Just a Lamp? Or Is It a Sculpture That Just Happens Also to Be a Lamp?

Mazer v. stein , 347 u.s. 201 (1954).

Rena Stein was part of a family business that produced electric lamps, and she created a series of china bases for the lamps, some in the forms of human figures.

These statuette-based lamps were popular enough that Stein’s designs were copied by several competitors. Stein had registered her designs with the Copyright Office and initiated several lawsuits alleging copyright infringement.

The defendants in the case argued that these lamps were useful objects and were thus not protected as works of expression.

At the Supreme Court, however, Justice Stanley F. Reed ruled that a work of expression that is part of a manufactured article can be eligible for copyright protection.

The result is that useful articles, like lamps, or clothing, or other devices and objects, can incorporate artistic works that are protectable under copyright law. In a more recent case, the Supreme Court ruled that designs on cheerleading uniforms were eligible for copyright protection even though they were incorporated into the design of useful articles.

These are just a few of the important court rulings that represent the changing understanding of copyright protection over the decades. And these cases set the stage for acceptance of works in new media of expression as technology has advanced, such as video games. Society and technology promise to advance together as new arts are brought into the copyright fold.

We don’t know what the statuette-lamps of the future will be. The increasing influence of artificial intelligence also promises to complicate the copyright landscape, given that our copyright law requires protected works to have human creators.

For 150 years, the Copyright Office has been offering advice and implementing policy as society and the results of creative endeavors change, and it looks forward to continue its work as new technologies and new creative forms pose new questions to be answered. So, help the Copyright Office celebrate its history and join it as it looks toward the future.

Comments (2)

Interesting. I recommend presenting Historic Court Cases on some type of a regular basis.

Thank you for this very informative article, which I will reference in the future for educational purposes.

See All Comments

Add a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes

From Barbie to cereal to a tattoo, a copyright lawsuit can get contentious; some have even reached the Supreme Court

Megan Gambino

Senior Editor

1. S. Victor Whitmill v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. In the recent movie The Hangover Part II , Stu Price, a strait-laced dentist played by actor Ed Helms, wakes up after a night of debauchery in Bangkok to find a tribal tattoo wrapped around his left eye, his skin still painfully pink. Price’s tattoo is identical to the one Mike Tyson has, and it alludes to the boxer’s cameo in the original 2009 movie The Hangover .

Tyson’s tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill filed a lawsuit against Warner Bros. Entertainment on April 28, just weeks before the movie’s May 26 opening. Since he obtained a copyright for the eight-year-old “artwork on 3-D” on April 19, he claimed that the use of his design in the movie and in advertisements without his consent was copyright infringement. Warner Bros., of course, saw it as a parody falling under “fair use.”

On May 24, 2011 Chief Judge Catherine D. Perry of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri denied an injunction on the movie’s release, but said Whitmill still had a case. If it meant avoiding a long trial, Warner Bros. said, in early June, that it would be willing to “digitally alter the film to substitute a different tattoo on Ed Helms’s face” when the movie is released on home video. But that ending was avoided on June 17, when Warner Bros. and Whitmill hashed out an agreement of undisclosed terms.

2. Isaac Newton v. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz By the early 18th century, many credited the German mathematician and philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz with inventing the study of calculus. Leibniz had, after all, been the first to publish papers on the topic in 1684 and 1686. But when Englishman Isaac Newton published a book called Opticks in 1704, in which he asserted himself as the father of calculus, a debate arose. Each of the thinkers’ respective countries wanted to stake a claim in what was one of the biggest advances in mathematics.

Newton claimed to have thought up the “science of fluxions,” as he called it, first. He apparently wrote about the branch of mathematics in 1665 and 1666, but only shared his work with a few colleagues. As the battle between the two intellectuals heated up, Newton accused Leibniz of plagiarizing one of these early circulating drafts. But Leibniz died in 1716 before anything was settled. Today, however, historians accept that Newton and Leibniz were co-inventors, having come to the idea independently of each other.

3. Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. In 1893, a man named Henry Perky began making a pillow-shaped cereal he called Shredded Whole Wheat. John Harvey Kellogg said that eating the cereal was like “eating a whisk broom,” and critics at the World Fair in Chicago in 1893 called it “shredded doormat.” But the product surprisingly took off. After Perky died in 1908 and his two patents, on the biscuits and the machinery that made them, expired in 1912, the Kellogg Company, then whistling a different tune, began selling a similar cereal. In 1930, the National Biscuit Company, a successor of Perky’s company, filed a lawsuit against the Kellogg Company, arguing that the new shredded wheat was a trademark violation and unfair competition. Kellogg, in turn, viewed the suit as an attempt on National Biscuit Company’s part to monopolize the shredded wheat market. In 1938, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the Kellogg Company on the grounds that the term “shredded wheat” was not trademarkable, and its pillow shape was functional and therefore able to be copied after the patent had expired.

4. Marcantonio Raimondi v. Albrecht Dürer Artist Albrecht Dürer discovered in the early 1500s that a fellow engraver by the name of Marcantonio Raimondi was copying one of his most famous works, a woodcut series of engravings called the Life of the Virgin . To make his prints, Raimondi carved detailed replicas of Dürer’s wood blocks. The prints, with Dürer’s “A” above “D” signature, could pass as Dürer originals, and Raimondi made considerable profits off of them. Dürer took issue and brought his case to the court of Venice. Ultimately, the court ruled that Raimondi could continue making copies, as long as he omitted the monogram.

5. Mattel Inc. v. MGA Entertainment Inc. Barbie was 42 years old when the exotic, puffy-lipped Bratz dolls Cloe, Jade, Sasha and Yasmin strolled onto the scene in 2001. Tensions escalated as the Bratz seized about 40 percent of Barbie’s turf in just five years. The Bratz struck first. In April 2005, their maker MGA Entertainment filed a lawsuit against toy powerhouse Mattel, claiming that the line of “My Scene” Barbies copied the big-headed and slim-bodied physique of Bratz dolls. Mattel then swatted back, accusing Bratz designer Carter Bryant for having designed the doll while on Mattel’s payroll. Bryant worked for Mattel from September 1995 to April 1998 and then again from January 1999 to October 2000, under a contract that stipulated that his designs were the property of Mattel.

In July 2008, a jury ruled in favor of Mattel, forcing MGA to pay Mattel $100 million and to remove Bratz dolls from shelves (an injunction that lasted about a year). But the two toy companies continued to duke it out. This April, in yet another court case, underdog MGA prevailed, proving that Mattel was actually the one to steal trade secrets.

6. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.

“Weird Al” Yankovic has a policy of writing a parody of a song only if he gets permission from the artist. In the late 1980s, the rap group 2 Live Crew attempted to play by the same rules. Luther Campbell, one of the group members, changed the refrain of Roy Orbison’s hit “Oh, Pretty Woman” from “pretty woman” to “big hairy woman,” “baldheaded woman” and “two-timin’ woman.” 2 Live Crew’s manager sent the bawdy lyrics and a recording of the song to Acuff-Rose Music Inc., which owned the rights to Orbison’s music, and noted that the group would credit the original song and pay a fee for the ability to riff off of it. Acuff-Rose objected, but 2 Live Crew included the parody, titled “Pretty Woman,” on its 1989 album “As Clean as They Wanna Be” anyway.

Acuff-Rose Music Inc. cried copyright infringement. The case went to the Supreme Court, which, in so many words, said, lighten up. “Parody, or in any event its comment, necessarily springs from recognizable allusion to its object through distorted imitation,” wrote Justice David Souter. “Its art lies in the tension between a known original and its parodic twin.”

7. Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh v. The Random House Group Limited Authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh surfaced in 2004 with claims that Dan Brown had cribbed the “central theme” and “architecture” of their 1982 book  The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail . Though Baigent and Leigh’s book was nonfiction and Brown’s  The Da Vinci Code  was fiction, they both boldly interpret the Holy Grail as being not a chalice but the bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene, who they alleged had a child together.

Baigent and Leigh accused Random House—ironically, their own publisher, as well as Brown’s—for copyright infringement. A London court ruled, in 2006, that historical research (or “historical conjecture,” as was the case with  The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail ) is fair game for novelists to explore in fiction. “It would be quite wrong if fictional writers were to have their writings pored over in the way  The Da Vinci Code  has been pored over in this case by authors of pretend historical books to make an allegation of infringement of copyright,” wrote Justice Peter Smith in his decision.

8. Lucasfilm Ltd. v. High Frontier and Lucasfilm v. Committee for a Strong, Peaceful America When politicians, journalists and scientists, in the mid-1980s, nicknamed the Reagan administration’s Strategic Defensive Initiative (SDI), the “star wars” program, George Lucas’s production company was miffed. It did not want the public’s positive associations with the term to be marred by the controversial plan to place anti-missile weapons in space.

In 1985, Lucasfilm Ltd. filed a lawsuit against High Frontier and the Committee for a Strong, Peaceful America—two public interest groups that referred to SDI as “star wars” in television messages and literature. Though Lucasfilm Ltd. had a trademark for Star Wars, the federal district court ruled in favor of the interest groups and their legal right to the phrasing so long as they didn’t attach it to a product or service for sale. “Since Jonathan Swift’s time, creators of fictional worlds have seen their vocabulary for fantasy appropriated to describe reality,” read the court decision.

9. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster Inc. In 1999, to the dismay of musicians around the world looking to sell albums, Shawn Fanning, an 18-year-old whiz kid studying computer science at Northeastern University, created Napster, a peer-to-peer music sharing service that allowed users to download MP3s for free. A&M Records, part of Universal Music Group, a heavy hitter in the music industry, as well as several other record companies affiliated with the Recording Industry Association of America slapped Napster with a lawsuit. The plaintiffs accused Napster of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. The case went from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where Napster was found guilty on both counts. In 2002, Napster was shut down. Grokster, another music-sharing site, surged on for a few more years, but it too stopped operating when the Supreme Court ruled against it in MGM v. Grokster in 2005.

10. Adidas America Inc. v. Payless Shoesource Inc. In 1994, Adidas and Payless got into a scuffle over stripes. Adidas had used its three-stripe mark as a logo of sorts since 1952, and had recently registered it as a trademark. But Payless was selling confusingly similar athletic shoes with two and four parallel stripes. The two companies hashed out a settlement, but by 2001, Payless was again selling the look-alikes. Fearing that the sneakers would dupe buyers and tarnish its name, Adidas America Inc. demanded a jury trial. The trial lasted seven years, during which 268 pairs of Payless shoes were reviewed. In the end, Adidas was awarded $305 million—$100 million for each stripe, as the  Wall Street Journal ’s Law Blog calculated.

Get the latest History stories in your inbox?

Click to visit our Privacy Statement .

Megan Gambino | | READ MORE

Megan Gambino is a senior web editor for Smithsonian magazine.

McCombs School of Business

• Español ( Spanish )

Videos Concepts Unwrapped View All 36 short illustrated videos explain behavioral ethics concepts and basic ethics principles. Concepts Unwrapped: Sports Edition View All 10 short videos introduce athletes to behavioral ethics concepts. Ethics Defined (Glossary) View All 58 animated videos - 1 to 2 minutes each - define key ethics terms and concepts. Ethics in Focus View All One-of-a-kind videos highlight the ethical aspects of current and historical subjects. Giving Voice To Values View All Eight short videos present the 7 principles of values-driven leadership from Gentile's Giving Voice to Values. In It To Win View All A documentary and six short videos reveal the behavioral ethics biases in super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's story. Scandals Illustrated View All 30 videos - one minute each - introduce newsworthy scandals with ethical insights and case studies. Video Series

Case Study UT Star Icon

Blurred Lines of Copyright

Marvin Gaye’s Estate won a lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for the hit song “Blurred Lines,” which had a similar feel to one of his songs.

In 2013, Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams co-produced the run-away hit single “Blurred Lines,” earning them over $16 million in sales and streaming revenues. The music video has been viewed hundreds of millions of times on YouTube and Vevo, and has been parodied numerous times as well. Despite its popularity, the similarity of “Blurred Lines” to Marvin Gaye’s 1977 hit song “Got to Give It Up” sparked controversy. The family of artist Marvin Gaye was outraged; they believed Gaye’s work was stolen. Thicke filed a preemptive lawsuit to prevent the Gaye family from claiming any share of royalties. However, Thicke also stated in public interviews that he was influenced by Marvin Gaye and, specifically, “Got to Give It Up” when he co-composed “Blurred Lines” with Williams.

In response, the Gaye family sued Williams and Thicke. Contradictions were apparent in Thicke’s account. In an interview with GQ, he stated that he co-wrote “Blurred Lines.” But in court he claimed that he was too high in the studio, and that Williams had in fact composed the song, and he had lied earlier in order to get credit. Williams claimed that, although Gaye’s music had influenced him in his youth, he did not copy Gaye’s song in his composition.

In March 2015, the jury ruled in favor of the Gaye estate, stating that while Williams and Thicke did not directly copy “Got to Give It Up,” there was enough of a similar “feel” to warrant copyright infringement. Gaye’s heirs were awarded $7.4 million in damages, the largest amount ever granted in a music copyright case.

While many commentators agreed with this verdict, others were concerned that it could negatively affect song writing within an entire genre. Musicologist Robert Fink, for example, stated that this verdict had the potential to set a precedent for “fencing off our shared heritage of sounds, grooves, vibes, tunes, and feels.” Musicians, artists, and writers often note that previous works influence them in their creative process, and that there is very little that is completely original. Thicke and Williams did not see the musical influence of Gaye as copyright infringement, but rather as inspiration that spurred them to create a new, original single.

Discussion Questions

1. Do you think the Gaye family should own the rights to the “feel” of “Got to Give It Up” in addition to specific lyrics, melodies, harmony, etc.? Why or why not?

2. What distinctions can you identify among sampling, appropriating, and stealing components of a song?

3. This court case is one among many over the past decade that have placed limits on song-writing and musical composition. Do you think it is important to provide these legal protections for artists even if it means hindering artistic creativity and the new works that might come from musical influence? Explain your reasoning.

4. Should authors, musicians, and other artists acknowledge all of the influences on their work, regardless of the degree of influence? Why or why not?

5. If you purchase a song and then recognize that it is appropriating an earlier work, you are not legally obligated to stop listening, but are you obligated ethically? Explain your reasoning.

Related Videos

Appropriation & Attribution

Attribution is giving credit where credit is due. Appropriation is the complex borrowing of ideas, images, symbols, sounds, and identity from others.

Bibliography

Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams and a Blurry Copyright Law? http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/03/17/robin-thicke-pharrell-williams-and-a-blurry-copyright-law

Blurred Lines’ Verdict: How It Started, Why It Backfired on Robin Thicke and Why Songwriters Should Be Nervous http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6502023/blurred-lines-verdict-how-it-started-why-it-backfired-on-robin-thicke-and

Blurred Lines, Ur-Lines and Color Lines http://musicologynow.ams-net.org/2015/03/blurred-lines-ur-lines-and-color-line.html

The Blurred Lines of Copyright Infringement Become Even Blurrier as the Robin Thicke v. Marvin Gaye’s Estate Lawsuit Continues http://www.mbhb.com/pubs/xpqPublicationDetail.aspx?xpST=PubDetail&pub=271

Stay Informed

Support our work.

Music Copyright and Licensing

• Copyright Duration
• Music Licensing
• Performer's Rights

Recent Cases

Landmark cases, historical copyright cases.

• GW Law: Music Copyright Infringement Resource: Cases A list of historical cases around the world specifically related to music copyright from George Washington University Law School. Description includes the year, country, case name, court, complaining work, defending work, complaining author, and defending author. Spans from 1844 to present day. Links are provided for more information about each individual case.

Music Copyright Cases -- Playlist

Dua lipa v. artikal sound system.

In March of 2022, Artikal Sound System filed a lawsuit against Dua Lipa over her song "Levitating." The reggae band claims it is infringement on their 2017 song "Live Your Life." Hear musicologists' takes on the case from an article by  Rolling Stone . The reggae hit reached number 2 on the Billboard Reggae charts, so it seems possible that Lipa had access to the music. Intention, however, is always difficult to prove. For more information, you can see  this article from Music Business Worldwide.  (Note: Live Your Life is not available on Spotify. Listen to it on Youtube .)

Childish Gambino (Donald Glover) v. Kidd Wes (Emelike Nwosuocha)

In May of 2021, Kidd Wes claimed that Childish Gambino's song "This is America" (2017) was "substantially similar" to the rapper's song "Made in America" (2016). Specifically, he claims that the  “the lyrical theme, content, and structure of the identically-performed choruses” are virtually identical. The case is not yet resolved. Source take from  here . 

BTS & Big Hit Entertainment (HYBE) v. Bryan Kahn

BTS appeared as guests on a television series I-Land back in 2020. Bryan Kahn, a resident of Florida and proclaims himself to be "engaged in the business of creating and producing television series and audio music,” claims his idea for a similar show was stolen. The show, which was called "Island Hip Hopping" was registered with the Writers Guild of America back in 2013. To prep for the show, he moved around different countries in Asia to learn more about the culture and was apparently set to being production in 2020. Whether the idea for a reality show can be protected by copyright, seems to be the main question. You can read more about this  here .

Lizzo (Melissa Jefferson) v. Justin Raisen, Jeremiah Raisen, & Justin ‘Yves’ Rothman

Raisen, Raisen, and Rothman claimed to have come up with the idea for the lyrics "I just took a DNA test, turns out, I'm 100% That Bitch," for Lizzo's song "Truth Hurts" during a writing session with Lizzo. They also created the song "Healthy," with the same lyrics. They claim that "Truth Hurts" is a derivative of their song and that therefore, they are entitled to the profits. However, since Raisen, Raisen, and Rothman did not claim authorship or co-creatorship of "Truth Hurts," the work cannot be deemed derivative, and therefore the case was dismissed in August of 2020.  Several countersuits have followed. You can read more about these cases  here . (Note: Cannot locate a recording for "Healthy.")

The Estate of Randy Wolfe (AKA Randy California) v. Led Zeppelin

The Estate of Randy Wolfe, the late-guitarist for the band Spirit, alleged copyright infringement. They claimed that Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven" copied a musical motif from Spirit's "Taurus." The case began in 2014 and was originally in favor of Randy Wolfe's Estate, however appeals in the 9th Circuit were just released in March 2020 in favor of Led Zeppelin. This case somewhat contradicts the ruling in the Thicke/Pharrell v. Gaye case (see below). For more information, read the news articles on the outcome.

The Estate of Jimmy Smith v. Drake

Similar to some of the landmark cases below, Drake licensed a part of a song called "Jimmy Smith Rap" in his song "Pound Cake/Paris Morton Music 2." They claimed that Drake did not license the composition (though he licensed the master). After several years of back and forth, the court of appeals ruled that Drake's use of the sample is fair use as it is transformative. For more information about this case read this article from the Hollywood Reporter .

Lana del Rey v. Radiohead

Lawyers representing the music publishers for Radiohead claimed that Lana Del Rey used the same chord progression and other musical elements from "Creep" in her song "Get Free." While it never went to trial, Lana Del Rey claimed that they settled, though no settlement has been announced. Interestingly, Radiohead had been sued by another band over "Creep" and they also settled out of court. 

Ed Sheeran v. Marvin Gaye

Ed Townsend, who is the beneficiary of some of Gaye's copyrights and a co-creator, is arguing that Sheeran's song "Thinking Out Loud" is infringing on Gaye's "Let's Get It On" as it takes from the melody, harmony, and rhythm of Gaye' song. The case has yet to go to trial, but stay tuned in!

Vanilla Ice v. Queen and David Bowie

Queen and David Bowie sued Vanilla Ice claiming that the bass line in "Ice Ice Baby" was a direct copy of "Under Pressure." Vanilla Ice argued that they weren't the same because he added an extra beat. The court ruled in Queen and Bowie's favor and Vanilla Ice had to pay an undisclosed sum.

Robin Thicke & Pharrell Williams v. Marvin Gaye

The estate of Marvin Gaye argued that Thicke and Williams stole the "general vibe" and certain percussive elements of "Got to Give It Up" for their song "Blurred Lines." The court ruled in Gaye' favor. Thicke and Williams paid $5.3 million in damages and will pay a 50% royalty fee making this one of the biggest payouts in music copyright history.

John Fogerty v. John Fogerty

One of the strangest cases ever conducted. Fogerty used to be part of a band called Creedence Clearwater Revival, or CCR, and wrote the song "Run Through the Jungle." 15 years later, Fogerty was no longer part of the band and he released the song "The Old Man Down the Road." The label for CCR sued him for copyright infringement. After one of the most interesting arguments in legal history, where Fogerty brought his guitar to court and demonstrated how the songs were different, the court rule they weren't the same song. He then countersued the label, which went all the way to the Supreme Court and he won, creating a legal precedent!

Roy Orbison v. 2 Live Crew

Roy Orbison sued 2 Live Crew saying that their use of his song "Oh Pretty Woman" in their song just called "Pretty Woman" was infringement. 2 Live Crew did use the full recording of his song, but they rapped over it, changing the meaning to something humorous. This is another case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. The court ruled that, while it is the same song, it was not infringement because it was a parody, which is transformative and often a form of criticism, therefore a fair use. This decision is a precedent that protects all other parody artists like Weird Al Yankovic

The Verve vs. The Rolling Stones

The Rolling Stones sued the Verve for their song "Bittersweet Symphony" which contained a sample from "The Last Time." Originally, the Verve had licensed the use of 5 notes from their song in exchange for 50% of their royalties. The Rolling Stones claimed that they used a larger portion than was agreed upon. The court ruled in their favor. As a result, they forfeited all of their royalties and publishing rights. They were sued again later for their mechanical rights. Verve had to give up all their rights to the song until May of 2019, when the Rolling Stones signed over all their publishing rights for that song to the Verve. Read more about that here .

Please note that this guide is merely to educate people on the law and does not contain any legal advice. If you have a legitimate question about copyright, please consult with a lawyer.

• << Previous: Performer's Rights
• Next: Resources >>
• Last Updated: Dec 2, 2022 11:02 AM
• URL: https://library.mi.edu/musiccopyright

Free Expression or Infringement? 10 Famous Copyright Cases to Know

By Scott A. Leadingham

If the First Amendment protects speech, why do we allow copyright laws that punish people for engaging in their own form of speech? After all, my creative expression is protected by the First Amendment, isn't it? Should I lose that protection just because I might have created something that looks like someone else's work? Those are good questions to ask and explore as we highlight famous copyright cases in the U.S.

It's true that the First Amendment broadly prevents the government from punishing people for what they say, write, sing and wear (with some exceptions). This also includes parody, satire and art criticism.

But taking someone else's work, presenting it as your own, and making money from that is not necessarily protected because then people would have no financial incentive to create, market and sell new things. That's a real concern and justifies copyright laws as a means of ensuring broad creativity.

Copyright protects creative works like books, songs, movies, games or paintings – like the lyrics and music in the Broadway musical "Hamilton." Other laws protect company logos and taglines (trademarks) and inventions (patents). A person owns copyright from the moment they create an original and permanent piece of expression of these types or others defined by federal copyright law. Getting a federal copyright registration isn't necessary. It just helps you protect your copyright by providing notice to people who might use your expression without permission and, better yet, by allowing you to go to court to protect your copyrighted work. Copyright, trademarks and patents are similar, but there are important differences to understand .

Discover 10 of the most famous copyright cases in pop culture history

It's said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. While being inspired by someone else's work may be free expression , copying it too closely is not. These famous copyright cases show this balance in action.

Queen and David Bowie v. Vanilla Ice

Music and copyright go together like Sonny and Cher. At the top of most famous copyright cases lists is that of rock legends David Bowie and Queen against rapper Vanilla Ice. If you've ever heard the opening seconds of Ice's 1990 hit " Ice Ice Baby " and thought it could be Queen and Bowie's " Under Pressure ," you wouldn't be alone. Queen and Bowie sued for copyright infringement. Ice didn't hide the fact that his song sampled "Under Pressure," but he said the bass line made it different. The sides settled out of court. Ice gave Bowie and Queen a songwriting credit.

Napster v. … basically the entire music industry

Before Spotify, Pandora, Tidal, Apple Music or any other streaming service, there was Napster. What started in 1999 as a computer enthusiast's way of sharing digital music files online became a threat to the music industry's business model. The heavy metal band Metallica sued Napster and its founder Shawn Fanning for violating copyright laws and racketeering in allowing users to share music files with each other. Major record companies followed with their own suits. Napster was found guilty, paying more than $25 million in damages.

Marvin Gaye estate v. Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams

Soul singer Marvin Gaye died in 1984, but his family and estate have spent years protecting his music. A lawsuit claimed the 2013 hit song "Blurred Lines" from Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams ripped off Gaye's 1977 song "Got to Give It Up." Gaye's estate won, eventually being awarded $5 million . On the other hand, British singer-songwriter Ed Sheeran won a similar lawsuit that claimed he had stolen elements of Gaye and co-writer Ed Townsend's "Let's Get It On" for his song "Thinking Out Loud."

Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams perform on stage in 2014.

John Fogerty v. … himself?

Creedence Clearwater Revival was one of the biggest bands of the late 1960s and 1970s. Frontman John Fogerty's distinctive voice led a generation of anti-war anthems. When he left the band for a solo career, his voice and songwriting went with him, but not the rights to CCR songs. Fantasy Records owned them and sued Fogerty over his solo song " The Old Man Down the Road " for sounding too much like the CCR song " Run Through the Jungle ," which Fogerty wrote. Fogerty won the copyright claim at trial, where he sang and played guitar on the stand. Though he won the lawsuit, he spent more than $1 million in legal fees to get there. So, he sued Fantasy Records to force them to pay those legal fees. That prompted an appeal to the Supreme Court , which ruled in Fogerty's favor.

"Playas Gon' Play" writers want Taylor Swift to knock it off

Taylor Swift's " Shake It Off " is a reminder of what to do in the face of criticism. But what about a copyright lawsuit? Songwriters Sean Hall and Nathan Butler sued Swift in 2017, alleging the song and its lines about "players gonna play" and "haters gonna hate" stole lyrics from their 2001 song " Playas Gon' Play ," written for the R&B group 3LW. Swift said the lyrics in her song were common sayings and that she was unfamiliar with the 3LW song. Outside of the lyrical snippet, there was no musical similarity between the two songs. The case was dismissed in 2022 one month before trial.

Star Wars strikes Battlestar Galactica

"Star Wars" may have been set in "a galaxy far, far away," but the lawyers at movie studio 20th Century Fox follow U.S. law. After the success of "Star Wars" in 1977, rival Universal Studios released the TV show "Battlestar Galactica," which caught the attention of (and awakened The Force inside) Fox. Battlestar was too similar in theme, Fox claimed. A prominent visual effects artist who worked on "Star Wars" was fired by George Lucas and went to work on the sci-fi show. Universal countersued, saying Fox had taken ideas from previous space-themed science fiction. The case was set for trial in 1983 , but both sides settled out of court.

Apple v. Microsoft

Before they were mainstays of everyday life, Apple and Microsoft were young companies trying to make their mark on the early personal computer market. In 1988 Apple sued Microsoft , saying the Bill Gates-led company stole Apple's graphical design for Windows 2.0. It was eventually explained as a misunderstanding. Microsoft technically had permission from Apple, and a court ruled in favor of Microsoft. Apple tried unsuccessfully to appeal several times. Much of the early-1980s drama between the two companies , and their famous founders, is explored in the 1999 movie "Pirates of Silicon Valley."

Sidewalk vendor selling anti-Windows t-shirts in 1997.

Viacom v. YouTube

In 2007, less than a year after Google bought YouTube, the companies were hit with a $1 billion copyright suit. Viacom, which owns MTV, CBS, and Comedy Central, said YouTube was wrongly taking clips from shows it owned and making money off them, accusing it of " massive intentional copyright infringement ." YouTube said that as a platform, it was not responsible for what people posted, and the legal responsibility fell on users. The case tested the limits of the 1998 Digital Millenium Copyright Act , which aimed to protect internet platforms from liability for what users posted. A series of decisions and appeals favored YouTube and Google. The companies finally settled out of court in 2014.

Associated Press v. Shepard Fairey and the Obama "HOPE" poster

Anyone who followed the 2008 presidential campaign encountered a red, white and blue rendering of candidate and eventual President Barack Obama with the word HOPE at the bottom . It was everywhere. The Associated Press took exception, claiming artist Shepard Fairey used one of their photographer's photos and improperly used it to make money for himself, without compensating the AP. Fairey sued the AP , saying he was engaged in a " fair use ," a legal defense to a copyright infringement lawsuit. They settled and agreed to share the rights. In a twist, Fairey later admitted to destroying evidence and to creating other fake evidence. He received two years' probation and 300 hours of community service.

Naruto and PETA v. Slater (aka "the monkey selfie")

Can a photographer violate copyright law with pictures from their own camera? Do animals have rights of ownership? Those questions followed the unique case of wildlife photographer David Slater. While taking pictures in an Indonesian wildlife reserve, he set down the camera long enough for a macaque monkey named Naruto to grab the camera and take a selfie. Slater published the photos, which spread widely. Animal-rights group PETA sued Slater , saying he had violated the monkey's copyright ownership; after all, whoever takes the photo immediately owns the copyright – and Naruto took the picture. (Slater argued that he really "took" the photo by setting the camera up to the point where anyone – or any animal – could simply press a button, a basic and automatic action.) A judge dismissed the case, saying Naruto wasn't covered by U.S. copyright law because the copyright is owned by the person who takes the picture – and Naruto wasn't a person. PETA appealed and both sides settled. Slater agreed to give 25% of earnings from the photos to groups protecting macaques in Indonesia.

Famous copyright cases and the First Amendment

The First Amendment broadly protects speech and many forms of artistic expression. Copyright laws prevent taking someone else's work and presenting it as your own – also known as plagiarism. A Freedom Forum guide on speech that is and is not protected by the First Amendment explains copyright and plagiarism this way:

"If you copy another person's writing, speech, art, music, or choreography without permission, that person can sue you for 'trespassing' on their property. The court can order you to stop your copyright infringement and impose financial penalties on you. Copyright law creates property rights for the creators of certain works in order to give people an incentive to create more expressions. If you could freely copy someone else's work without paying for it, there would be no incentive for anyone to create new material."

That limit on free speech is at the center of the famous copyright cases highlighted above – and in all cases.

With artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT , DALL-E and others quickly changing how creative work is made and shared, a new era of copyright law and cases is coming. The question isn't if AI will affect music, art, writing, film, news, software and all creative expressions, but to what extent laws need to change as the next generation of copyright cases unfolds.

Scott A. Leadingham is a Freedom Forum staff writer.

Watch: Steppenwolf’s John Kay on “Born to Be Wild,” Free Speech and Music

Freedom of the Press Examples You Should Know

Related Content

First Amendment Supreme Court Cases: 2023-2024 Term

5 times world-class athletes used their freedom to petition, when it comes to first amendment rights, do we want a sword or a shield, what do americans think about their freedom of petition.

• --> Login or Sign Up

• Problem Solving Workshop

Sue the Consumer: Digital Copyright in the New Millennium

Charles Nesson and Sarah Jeong

Share This Article

• Custom Field #1
• Custom Field #2
• Similar Products

Product Description

In December 1999, the Recording Industry Association of America brought suit against Napster, a peer-to-peer file-sharing company for downloading music. With the new millennium came a spree of other suits against similar companies, with the RIAA often emerging victorious. However, the lawsuits failed to stamp out peer-to-peer downloading, which transitioned to open source software that could not be linked to specific software developers. The lawsuit spree didn’t end either: instead, the recording industry sued the downloaders.

This background note surveys the evolution of peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing and copyright infringement suits, and highlights the plight of consumers in the United States’ rare statutory damages regime. Readers will become versed in the precedent cases, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the basic technology of P2P and torrenting. The note sparks readers to envision a future for end users and fair use of digital content.

NOTE: This case is an adaptation of From Sony to SOPA: The Technology-Content Divide , also available from HLS Case Studies.

Learning Objectives

• Identify a systematic approach to problem solving when faced with an unresolved issue or new situation.
• Understand how the U.S. copyright system works in cases of unauthorized downloads of creative works.
• Debate the pros and cons of the current copyright regime.
• Consider a defendant’s course of action when faced with a suit or takedown notice.

Subjects Covered

Copyright, intellectual property, statutory damages, peer-to-peer file-sharing, recording industry, fair use

Setting  

Geographic: United States

Industry: Technology, Music

Event Start Date: 1984

Accessibility

To obtain accessible versions of our products for use by those with disabilities, please contact the HLS Case Studies Program at [email protected] or +1-617-496-1316.

Educator Materials

Registered members of this website can download this product at no cost.  Please  create an account  or  sign in  to gain access to these materials. 

Note: It can take up to three business days after you create an account to verify educator access. Verification will be confirmed via email.

For more information about the Problem Solving Workshop, or to request a teaching note for this case study, contact the Case Studies Program at [email protected] or +1-617-496-1316.

Additional Information

Case Studies in Cyber-Citizenship

The Problem Solving Workshop: A Video Introduction

Case Studies Greatest Hits

Copyright Information

Please note that each purchase of this product entitles the purchaser to one download and use.  If you need multiple copies, please purchase the number of copies you need. For more information, see  Copying Your Case Study .

Product Videos

Custom field, product reviews, write a review.

Find Similar Products by Category

Recommended.

Ching Pow: Far East Yardies!!

Charles Nesson and Saptarishi Bandopadhyay

In the Stadium and in the Street: The Brazil Soccer Riots

MOOCs and Consequences for the Future of Education

Jeffrey R. Young and Charles Nesson

• Related Products

• Library Catalog
• eBook Collections
• Theses & Dissertations
• Course Reserves
• Research Guides
• Government Documents
• Trial Subscriptions
• Clarkson Art Collection
• Services for Students
• Services for Faculty & Staff
• Services for Distance Users
• Services for Visitors & Alumni
• Library Hours
• Checkout & Return Policies
• Interlibrary Loan (ILL)
• Using the Library
• Copyright Basics
• Open Educational Resources
• Local Libraries
• Occupational Therapy (OT)
• Physical Therapy (PT)
• Physician Assistant (PA)
• Human Anatomy
• Drug Information
• Medical Calculators
• Literature Searching
• Citation Help
• Search Journals
• All Databases
• About the Libraries
• Library History
• Jobs at the Library
• Libraries Policies
• Mission, Vision & Values
• Library Staff

University Libraries

• Main Campus Front Desk (315) 268-2292
• Ask a Librarian [email protected]
• Example Copyright Cases

Common Questions & Examples

• American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc. American Geophysical Union and 82 other publishers which sold journal subscriptions to Texaco alleged that Texaco’s employees infringed their copyrights by repeatedly photocopying individual journal articles without permission and distributing them. The court found that this was not fair use because Texaco’s actions were “part of a systematic process of encouraging employee researchers to copy articles so as to multiply available copies while avoiding payment.” The court found that employees were copying whole articles and that such copying interfered with the commercial value of the articles.
• Basic Books, Inc. v. Kinko’s Kinko’s used course readings lists from colleges and, without asking permission or paying copyright fees, photocopied excerpts from assigned readings to create “course packets,” which they sold to students at a profit. The court found that this was not fair use, as it was for a commercial purpose and would harm publishers’ sales. The court also noted that there was no compelling educational reason to copy the materials without permission or paying fees.
• Camridge University Press v. Patton Cambridge University Press (and others) sued Georgia State University for infringing copyright by allowing unlicensed portions of their works to be posted on university systems for students to obtain electronically. The court found that most of the instances were fair use, and that a “holistic analysis” of each instance was required to “carefully balance” all four Fair Use factors. The court also noted that not all four factors must be given equal weight.
• Posner on Copyright – 10 Cases to Remember
• Princeton University Press v. Michigan Document Services, Inc. Michigan Document Services, Inc., a commercial photography shop, copied significant portions of written materials that were assigned readings for University of Michigan courses. They assembled these materials into “coursepacks” offered for sale to students. The copyright owners of the materials sued. The court found that this was not Fair Use. The court pointed to the commercial nature of the business and the profit made from the coursepacks, as well as the potential damage to the market for the copyrighted works.
• Stanford University Libraries – Summaries of Fair Use Cases Summarizes a variety of Fair Use court cases, some academic and some not. Include cases where Fair Use was found, as well as cases where it was not.
• U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index An index of federal court cases court cases regarding fair use.
• Univeristy of Florida – Summary of Cases on Copyright in Education Summary of several cases involving educational arguments in a copyright dispute, including links to materials on each case such as commentary, lawyers’ arguments, and case opinions.

Can I post a PDF of a journal article the library subscribes to in my Moodle Course?

Maybe. Generally speaking, if an item meets the requirements set out under Fair Use or the TEACH Act, materials can be shared in a password protected learning management system like Moodle for a limited period of time. Factors to consider are how many students will have access to the course and how long the materials will be available, including whether it will be available for multiple semesters. More students and longer access weigh against fair use. You will need to consider the Fair Use factors to decide whether your use of the materials falls under Fair Use.

However,  even if it is considered fair use , some library database user agreements may prohibit the sharing of articles or other materials in this way, so the best practice is to link to the article in the database by using a permanent URL, rather than uploading the PDF. This will also allow students to access the most up to date version of the material.

Can I show a DVD or Blu-Ray video in my classroom?

Yes, as long as it is for classroom instruction and no admission fee is charged.

Can I show a DVD or Blu-Ray video in a non-classroom context?

Generally not, unless permission has been obtained from the copyright holder.

Can I Stream a Netflix (or other streaming service) Video in My Classroom?

If you are using a video streaming service licensed through the library or your department that is intended for that purpose, yes. You can see the options available via the library here . 

What about personal streaming services?

Netflix does allow some films to be shown in an educational context under certain conditions. See their page here for details . You can search media.netflix.com to see which films may be shown by educators.

However, make sure you are using approved films only, as most user agreements do not allow public screenings. “When one signs a license agreement, he or she often gives away certain freedoms, such as copyright exceptions. The Netflix user agreement overtly conveys “the Software is only for your own personal, non-commercial use and not for use in the operation of a business or service bureau, for profit or for the benefit or any other person or entity.” Most copyright attorneys comprehend the phrase “for your own personal… use” as giving away your statutory exceptions to use section 110(1) and even section 107 (fair use).” –  Kris Helge, Scholarly Communications Librarian at the University of North Texas. “May One Stream a Netflix Video for In-Class Use?”

If you wish to use a streaming service to show a video in your classroom, you will need to check your user agreement to see if it prohibits you from using it for a public showing.

Can I post a PDF of a journal article to my faculty website?

Probably not. If the website is available to the general public and is not password protected, this would probably not be considered a Fair Use because you cannot be sure it will only be used for academic purposes.

Can I copy articles to create a Course Pack for my students?

Probably not. Generally speaking, you need to ask copyright permission before reproducing copyrighted materials for use in a course pack. However, information in the Public Domain would be an exception.

Can I photocopy one article from a journal for my own personal use?

Yes, this would probably be considered Fair Use.

Can I make materials from the university archives publicly available online?

It depends. If the materials are still covered by copyright, it may not be possible to make the materials publicly available on-line, unless the donor has given permission. Materials need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Can I use copyrighted photos or music in my classroom presentation?

Yes, this would generally be considered a fair use of the materials if it is for instructional purposes. You should make sure you cite the original creator, however.

Can I use copyrighted materials in an open-access educational course? Can my students use copyrighted materials in an open-access project?

Probably not. Generally a distinction is made between a password protected on-line course and websites or courses that are not password protected.

University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog

Student and Practitioner Legal Scholarship Online

Game Over: Copyright Issues in the Modern Video Game Landscape

Photo by Aleks Dorohovich on Unsplash

Bennett Herbert, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review

I. Introduction

With the rise of online capabilities, video games have progressed far beyond the isolated and indoor subculture they used to be. Video games now provide an interactive virtual community and a booming business that is part artistic expression, part sporting competition, and part massive entertainment. [1] Some prominent gamers have become bona fide celebrities, like Tyler Blevins, or “Ninja,” who made $500,000 per month in 2018. [2]

This elevated exposure brings legal questions for the creators of games and consoles. For decades, consoles have been modified (“modded”) to give users capabilities further than the creator intended. [3] Some modifications are non-infringing, while others are explicitly infringe on the author’s intellectual property, [4] and it has not been easy for courts to discern. Copyright issues amongst online tournaments have caused some companies to send cease-and-desist orders to prevent the competitions from taking place. [5] Online streaming sites like Twitch have allowed gamers to connect with millions, [6] but bring issues with respect to music copyrights. [7]

Part II will provide a background to the technical and legal progression of modding, online tournaments that video game companies have shut down, and the copyright issues of streaming sites. Part III will recommend solutions to the global split in how modding is enforced, explain why video game corporations might benefit from not always seeking to protect their copyrights, and how streaming sites can protect artists’ copyrights without harming the users’ experience.

II. Background

In 1996, the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) signed the “internet treaties,” including a provision prohibiting illegal circumvention. [8] Later, Congress amended the DMCA to give authors more copyright protection. [9] United States v. Reichert 747 F.3d 445 (6 th Cir. 2014) is a case from the Sixth Circuit that examines enforcing the DMCA on those who modify consoles, [10] and C-355/12 Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Others v. PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl 2014 E.C.R. is a case from the European Court of Justice to contrast the American and European approach. [11] Video game companies have shut down online competitions over copyright issues, leading to a riff in their relationship with fans. [12] Streaming services have created a new set of intellectual property issues for video game companies, users, and third parties. [13]

A. Technological Circumvention

Technological protection measures (“TPMs”) are technologies used to control or restrict access to digital content or electronic devices. [14] TPMs limit the functionality of a device or program to a particular use, thus protecting copyrights by preventing unauthorized duplication and/or access. [15] This is a useful way for authors to protect their creations, but overly restrictive TPMs can interfere with consumers’ ability to use the technology in other, legal ways. [16] As a result, the legality of technology created to circumvent TPMs is a gray area.

In gaming, TPM circumvention most often comes in the form of modification chips (“mod chips”). [17] These computer chips are installed into a console to enhance its capabilities or add to its functionalities. [18] Some enhancements are illegal infringement, such as allowing the user to play unauthorized copies of video games, while others are legitimate and non-infringing, such as backing up copies of legally purchased video games, fixing bugs in failing consoles, or allowing a console to play DVDs that it otherwise could not. [19] Because mod chips can serve both non-infringing and infringing purposes, it is not always easy to determine their legal status. 

B. WIPO Internet Treaties and Subsequent Legislation

In 1996, the WIPO Copyright Treaty (“WCT”) and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (“WPPT”) were adopted by the member states of WIPO. [20] Known together as the “internet treaties,” these agreements provided copyright protection in response to advances in information technology. [21] The agreements included a prohibition of circumventing TPM’s. [22]

In 1998, Congress enacted the DMCA to implement the “internet treaties.” [23] The DMCA contains a provision that prohibits circumvention and the trafficking of circumventing technologies. [24] To prevent adversely punishing non-infringing uses of circumvention, several exceptions have been added. [25] While some courts like the Sixth Circuit have accounted for these exceptions, [26] others like the Ninth Circuit have treated the DMCA as a broad prohibition on circumvention as a whole, even those with an incidental relation to copyrighted works. [27]

C. United States v. Reichert

In United States v. Reichert , the Sixth Circuit analyzed whether someone who intentionally modded and sold a video game console, but was possibly unsure of whether such acts were illegal, was guilty of violating the DMCA. [28]

Jeffrey Reichert was convicted for trafficking a modified Nintendo Wii to a federal agent acting as a prospective customer. [29] Reichert installed a mod chip that allowed the Wii to play unauthorized video games and sold the Wii to the agent for a $50 profit. [30]

The Sixth Circuit affirmed Reichert’s conviction, [31] relying on Reichert’s own online postings — he knew his conduct was “a gray area” and that “we aren’t technically supposed to do it (mod consoles)” — to conclude that he was willful of his conduct and its illegal nature. [32]

D. Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Others v. PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl

In Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Others v. PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl , the European Court of Justice ruled that Article 6 of Directive 2001/29 of the European Parliament provided copyright protection to both video games and their consoles, and established a balancing act for evaluating when products that circumvent a console’s security measures constituted infringement. [33]

Nintendo sued PC Box for marketing Nintendo consoles with additional software that circumvented the console’s TPMs. [34] This software enabled use of unauthorized video games. [35]   PC Box argued the software was intended to enable the user to play MP3 files and movies on the console. [36] The lower court referred to the Court of Justice as to: (1) do the Article 6 protections provided for video games extended to video game consoles as well?; and (2) when considering a product whose purpose is to circumvent a TPM, what should a court should consider? [37]

The Court of Justice answered in the affirmative to the first query, explaining that it was paramount to video game authorship for protections to cover both video games and consoles. [38] As to the second question, the Court ruled that it was relevant to consider the relative costs that a particular TPM imposes on consumers, how effective the TPM is in protecting the owner’s intellectual property, the intended purpose of the circumventing technology, and evidence of how users are actually using the circumventing technology. [39]

E. Online Tournaments

The growth of competitive gaming or electronic sports (“eSports”) has led to a profitable marketing opportunity for video game companies, [40] but copyright issues have spurred cease-and-desist orders against some prominent tournaments. [41]

For decades, gamers have competed to determine who is the best player (and often for a cash prize). [42] These competitions have grown more popular, especially with online play allowing gamers to compete with opponents across the world from the comfort of their home. [43] Many video game companies have even partnered with professional gamers and eSport organizations, [44] providing the companies with a share of the revenue and/or greater marketability. [45]

In November of 2020, Nintendo sent a cease and desist to a Super Smash Bros. Melee (“Melee”) tournament known as Big House, [46] claiming that the use of a software program called Slippi infringed on Nintendo’s copyright. [47] Slippi is a program that allows users to play older games like Melee online. [48] Without Slippi or similar software, Melee can only be played in-person. [49] The tournament was cancelled and many fans were frustrated, [50] particularly because they felt that since Nintendo had not sold Melee since 2008, the company had little financial interest in the matter. [51] Some also noted that Slippi’s primary function was merely to make the game’s online play smoother, versus downloading illegal copies of games. [52]

F. Copyright Issues in Online Video Game Streaming

While streaming has increased gaming’s popularity and created groundbreaking avenues for the industry, it has brought copyright issues that involve vicarious liability for the site. [53]

A major reason gaming has increased so much in popularity lately is online streaming sites that allow users to stream what they are playing to viewers online. [54] The most popular of these sites, Twitch, saw 140 million unique monthly users in 2020. [55] This increased exposure has led to prominent gamers earning money, endorsements, and even becoming celebrities. [56]

In copyright law, vicarious liability applies when a party is liable for another’s infringement. [57] In order to be vicariously liable to infringement that occurred, a party must: (1) not be the party directly infringing; (2) have the right and ability to supervise the infringer(s); and (3) financially benefit from the infringement. [58] It is common for streamers to play music in the background. Over the last few years, various record companies and musical artists have threatened litigation against popular streamers for copyright infringement for using this music. [59] More significantly, some have threatened to sue Twitch for being vicariously liable for broadcasters’ conduct. [60] In response, Twitch deleted tens of thousands of videos from streamers’ profiles in October of 2020, without giving the users viable notice. [61] Streamers were upset with their inability to dispute the claims and criticized Twitch for its broad application of sanctions. [62]

II. Discussion

Given the growing popularity and technological advancements of the industry, the copyright issues in gaming are more likely to exacerbate than diminish. The language of the Internet treaties and DMCA is ambiguous, and until either is amended, American courts should approach enforcement of mod chips similarly to how the European Court of Justice has applied Article 6. For their part, video game corporations would benefit – both financially and in fans’ esteem – if they did not vehemently seek to protect their copyrights at every possible turn. Lastly, online streaming companies should creatively and proactively seek ways to protect third parties’ intellectual property, while simultaneously providing a convenient experience for users.

A. American Courts Interpretation of the DMCA with Respect to Modding

The United States and European Union typically see eye-to-eye on copyright issues. [63] However, as seen in United States v. Reichert and Nintendo v. PC Box , American courts have interpreted the circumvention prohibition in the DMCA differently than European courts have interpreted the Information Society Directive. This split in enforcement exists despite interpreting similar laws that were both enacted to enforce the same treaty. It is uncertain what to make of treaties like the WCT if economic powers cannot agree what the treaty requires of them.

Modding video game consoles can be used for illegal purposes, such as infringing on a creator’s copyright by allowing play of an unauthorized video game, or for legitimate, non-infringing purposes, such as allowing users to back up games they have legally purchased. [64] This conflict, combined with the DMCA’s ambiguous language, has caused different circuits to apply varying levels of sanctions to modding chips that circumvent video game consoles’ TPMs. [65]

International negotiators could recognize the split between American and Europeans courts. This could lead WIPO nations to adopting a new WCT provision that more explicitly directs how to enforce TPM circumvention. This language could include the balancing test of factors that the European court laid out in Nintendo v. PC Box .

If the WIPO nations do not reconcile this split, Congress can alleviate the disparity in American circuits by amending the DMCA to include more explicit language that guides courts to effectively protect authorship and permit benevolent circumvention. This could include more narrow language that reflects the European court’s considerations in Nintendo v. PC Box by: (1) regulating particular types of modding; (2) incorporating for factors that indicate whether a mod chip is used to infringe; and (3) accounting for the costs to users for different TPMs. Congress can amend the DMCA in a similar way it did with the Unlocking Consumer Choice and Wireless Competition Act. In 2014, Congress passed that act to carve an exception to make it legal for users to circumvent their cell phone carriers’ locks when changing carriers. [66] This allowed users to change cell phone carriers without needing to buy a new cell phone. [67] Congress can carve out similarly explicit exceptions for mod chips that are primarily used for non-infringing purposes.

Until WIPO nations or Congress amend language to help alleviate the difference in enforcement, American courts should interpret the DMCA’s circumvention provisions in a similar way the European Court of Justice interpreted Article 6 in Nintendo v. PC Box . By carefully considering the breadth of a given console’s TPM, the intended purpose of a circumventing technology, and the evidence of how users are actually utilizing the mod chip, courts can protect authorship and encourage harmless modding in a more consistent manner.

B. Video Game Corporations Approach to Infringement in Online Competitions

The massive and increasing appeal of online video game competitions has provided video game companies with an opportunity for revenue and marketability that was not available to them in decades past. [68] In 2018, ESPN broadcast an eSport gaming tournament on primetime for the first time. [69] At its peak, the 2019 Big House tournament for Melee garnered over 85,000 simultaneous spectators. [70] However, corporations like Nintendo consistently shut down these opportunities at the first sign of modding that might infringe on their intellectual property. [71] They threaten legal action even when modding is the only way for the online tournament to operate, and even when the competition involves a video game that has not been in production for over ten years. [72] Nintendo’s actions have led to fans protesting and boycotting, and has prevented the eSports community from embracing Nintendo’s games. [73] Competitive gaming is one of the primary reasons Melee became a cult sensation in the mid-2000’s, [74] and Nintendo’s actions are all but ensuring the newer Ultimate will not reach the same level of popularity.

Video game companies should conduct a cost-benefit analysis shutting down these popular online tournaments that occasionally infringe on their copyrights. Doing so will likely reveal that the benefits of pursuing legal protection of their intellectual property in every online tournament that uses modding technology is outweighed by the benefits that will be obtained via revenue, marketing, and reputation through greater exposure in the eSports community.

C. Streaming Services Approach to Infringement

Online streaming sites like Twitch must balance the interests of avoiding vicarious liability from their users conduct, and allowing a convenient and appealing experience for users to comfortably create content. Doing so will take creative and proactive steps that go beyond simply mass-deleting thousands of videos every time a record company threatens litigation.

Twitch recently created a catalogue of music that is not copyright protected for users to choose from. [75] This effort could help alleviate the problem, but most streamers who still play music do not choose from this catalogue. [76] Taking this idea a step further will likely be needed to halt the barrage of threats from musical copyright holders. Twitch and similar sites should negotiate a license with music labels and artists, and then offer that licensure to its streamers. This would allow artists to be compensated from the users listening to their music on a stream, and allow Twitch streamers to comfortably play music without fear of having their video deleted.

Since any solution is unlikely to alleviate 100% of all copyright infringement that broadcasters conduct, it is also important for sites like Twitch to establish a process that regulates and reviews claims of copyright infringement with more nuance and due process. While the sweeping act of deleting thousands of videos at once will help prevent copyright infringement, it is an overbroad solution that is likely to inadvertently violate non-infringers freedom of speech. 

IV. Conclusion

Between the rise of modding, online gaming, and streaming, it was natural for Congress to better protect video game authors from copyright piracy. The DMCA has provided video game corporations greater copyright protection, [77] but the provision’s ambiguous language has led to confusion in the courtroom and over-regulation of benevolent modding. [78] Until international bodies agree on the WCT’s enforcement of circumvention technologies – or further amendments to the DMCA are made – American courts should interpret this issue with a similar approach as the European Court of Justice did in Nintendo v. PC Box . This will provide clarity among the circuit courts and prevent harmless modding from being punished.

For their part, video game companies could benefit financially and in reputation by lowering their guard and reducing how proactively they seek out legal action against any and all infringers. Streaming services such as Twitch must avoid vicarious liability by prohibiting its users from infringing on musical artists, but can do so without ruining the users’ experience by proactively seeking musical licenses and monitoring claims of infringement with greater nuance.

[1] Scott Alan Burroughs, A Twitch in Time: Legal Issues Catch Up With Popular Game-Broadcasting Platform , ABOVE THE LAW (Sep. 5, 2018), https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/a-twitch-in-time-legal-issues-catch-up-with-popular-game-broadcasting-platform/?rf=1 .

[3] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 456 (6th Cir. 2014).

[4] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 456 (6th Cir. 2014).

[5] Peter Morics, Nintendo Pulls the Plug On Massive Smash Bros Online Tournament , SCREENRANT (Nov. 19, 2020), https://screenrant.com/nintendo-ban-smash-bros-tournament-online/ .

[6] Scott Alan Burroughs, A Twitch in Time: Legal Issues Catch Up With Popular Game-Broadcasting Platform , ABOVE THE LAW (Sep. 5, 2018), https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/a-twitch-in-time-legal-issues-catch-up-with-popular-game-broadcasting-platform/?rf=1 .

[8] S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17 (1997); 2186 U.N.T.S. 203; 36 I.L.M. 76 (1997).

[9] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 448 (6th Cir. 2014).

[10] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 448 (6th Cir. 2014).

[11] C-355/12, Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Others v. PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl, 2014 E.C.R.

[12] Max Mastro, Nintendo Shuts Down Super Smash Bros. Ultimate College Tournament , SCREENRANT (Dec. 19, 2020), https://screenrant.com/super-smash-bros-ultimate-nintendo-tournament-shut-down-playvs/#:~:text=community%20when%20reports%20of%20rampant,game%20to%20enable%20online%20play .

[13] Banner Witcoff, Twitch Deletes Content for Copyright Infringement Without Warning , LEXOLOGY (Oct. 23, 2020), https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6285c2b1-214b-484f-b10d-af90b97ac421 .

[14] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 456 (6th Cir. 2014).

[15] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 456-457 (6th Cir. 2014).

[16] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 456-457 (6th Cir. 2014).

[17] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 459 (6th Cir. 2014).

[18] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 459 (6th Cir. 2014).

[19] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 459-460 (6th Cir. 2014).

[20] S. Treaty Doc. No. 105-17 (1997); 2186 U.N.T.S. 203; 36 I.L.M. 76 (1997).

[23] Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) (1996).

[25] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 457 (6th Cir. 2014).

[26] Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Techs., Inc., 381 F.3d 1178, 1203 (6 th Cir. 2004).

[27] MDY Indus., LLC v. Blizzard Entm’t, Inc . , 629 F.3d 928, 948 (9 th Cir. 2010).

[28] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 448 (6th Cir. 2014).

[29] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 448 (6th Cir. 2014).

[30] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 448 (6th Cir. 2014).

[31] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 455 (6th Cir. 2014).

[32] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 452-453 (6th Cir. 2014).

[33] C-355/12, Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Others v. PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl, 2014 E.C.R.

[34] C-355/12, Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Others v. PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl, 2014 E.C.R., paragraph 66.

[35] C-355/12, Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Others v. PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl, 2014 E.C.R., paragraph 65.

[36] C-355/12, Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Others v. PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl, 2014 E.C.R, paragraph 68.

[37] C-355/12, Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Others v. PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl, 2014 E.C.R., paragraphs 71-73.

[38] C-355/12, Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Others v. PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl, 2014 E.C.R., paragraph 98.

[39] C-355/12, Nintendo Co. Ltd. and Others v. PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl, 2014 E.C.R., paragraph 99.

[40] Esports Continues to Lead Online Gaming Industry Growth , PR NEWSWIRE (Mar. 5, 2021), https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/esports-continues-to-lead-online-gaming-industry-growth-301241107.html .

[41] Peter Morics, Nintendo Pulls the Plug On Massive Smash Bros Online Tournament , SCREENRANT (Nov. 19, 2020), https://screenrant.com/nintendo-ban-smash-bros-tournament-online/ .

[42] Esports Continues to Lead Online Gaming Industry Growth , PR NEWSWIRE (Mar. 5, 2021), https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/esports-continues-to-lead-online-gaming-industry-growth-301241107.html .

[43] Peter Morics, Nintendo Pulls the Plug On Massive Smash Bros Online Tournament , SCREENRANT (Nov. 19, 2020), https://screenrant.com/nintendo-ban-smash-bros-tournament-online/ .

[44] Kevin Vanstone, Esports Platforms and Partnerships Enabling the Next Generation of Gamers , INN (Sep. 21, 2020), https://investingnews.com/daily/tech-investing/gaming-investing/esports-investing/esports-platforms-and-partnerships-enabling-the-next-generation-of-gamers/ .

[53] Scott Alan Burroughs, A Twitch in Time: Legal Issues Catch Up With Popular Game-Broadcasting Platform , ABOVE THE LAW (Sep. 5, 2018), https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/a-twitch-in-time-legal-issues-catch-up-with-popular-game-broadcasting-platform/?rf=1 .

[63] Kinga Kijak-Markiewicz, Copyright Law: EU Countries vs. US , PHOTOCLAIM (Oct. 10, 2017), https://photoclaim.com/en/copyright-law-eu-countries-vs-us-part-1/ .

[64] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 456 (6th Cir. 2014).

[65] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 456 (6th Cir. 2014).

[66] Julian Hattem, House Votes to Allow Cellphone ‘Unlocking , ’ THE HILL (July 25, 2014), https://thehill.com/policy/technology/213361-house-votes-to-allow-cellphone-unlocking .

[68] Kevin Vanstone, Esports Platforms and Partnerships Enabling the Next Generation of Gamers , INN (Sep. 21, 2020), https://investingnews.com/daily/tech-investing/gaming-investing/esports-investing/esports-platforms-and-partnerships-enabling-the-next-generation-of-gamers/ .

[69] ESPN is going to air the first e-sports league final match ever in prime time , TECHNOLOGY REVIEW (July 12, 2020), https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/07/12/240413/espn-is-going-to-air-the-first-esports-league-final-match-ever-in-prime-time/ .

[70] The Big House 9 detailed viewer stats , ESPORTS CHARTS (July 7, 2019), https://escharts.com/tournaments/ssb/big-house-9 .

[71] Peter Morics, Nintendo Pulls the Plug On Massive Smash Bros Online Tournament , SCREENRANT (Nov. 19, 2020), https://screenrant.com/nintendo-ban-smash-bros-tournament-online/ .

[72] It is worth noting one exception to the DMCA’s circumvention prohibition is to allow access to video games distributed on formats that have become obsolete.

[73] Max Mastro, Nintendo Shuts Down Super Smash Bros. Ultimate College Tournament , SCREENRANT (Dec. 19, 2020), https://screenrant.com/super-smash-bros-ultimate-nintendo-tournament-shut-down-playvs/#:~:text=community%20when%20reports%20of%20rampant,game%20to%20enable%20online%20play .

[74] Zane Bhansali, The Smash World Tour, boasting a $250,000 prize pool, wants to make Smash a tier one esport , THE WASHINGTON POST (March 12, 2020), https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/esports/2020/03/12/smash-world-tour/ .

[75] Scott Alan Burroughs, A Twitch in Time: Legal Issues Catch Up With Popular Game-Broadcasting Platform , ABOVE THE LAW (Sep. 5, 2018), https://abovethelaw.com/2018/09/a-twitch-in-time-legal-issues-catch-up-with-popular-game-broadcasting-platform/?rf=1 .

[77] United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 455 (6th Cir. 2014).

[78]  United States v. Reichert, 747 F.3d 445, 457 (6th Cir. 2014).

Bennett Herbert

Bennett Herbert is from Cincinnati. After being unsatisfied as a chemical engineer, he pursued law school for the opportunity to have a greater impact on the community. Bennett wrote his article about how the NBA's collective bargaining agreement could be changed by the COVID-19 pandemic and player-driven wildcat strike of 2020 because of his passion for basketball and because he sees this as a unique moment for the players to initiate positive change for their union. Bennett has also written blog articles about the legal issues of intellectual property in video games, Kentucky's latest anti-protest statutes, and Airbnb's lack of regulation. He looks forward to using his technical background as a patent lawyer and to optimize how courts utilize forensic evidence.

Discover more from University of Cincinnati Law Review Blog

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Type your email…

Continue reading

Copyright issues for cases

By  Clare Painter , January 2017

In today’s digital world, it is easier than ever before to reuse and redistribute content, but copyright legislation varies across the world, and has advanced far more slowly than technology. We used to think that copyright for written works was only of interest to publishers and authors, but this is no longer true.

Business schools, along with businesses, societies and other organisations, are increasingly taking practical steps to manage these risks, bringing consistency to the way copyright material is used in print and online, and making it easier to share good practice across the organisation. Often, the school will make available practical copyright advice and assistance for faculty members.

For the organisation, a Copyright Audit is often the first step, helping to spot any gaps in the way copyright is currently managed, and defining the copyrights and licences which they already hold.

You will save time and avoid pitfalls more easily if you have copyright guidelines and templates to refer to. For example, should requests for reuse always be passed back to the business school, rather than being handled by faculty authors directly?

What does this mean for faculty?

Digital publishing and distribution undoubtedly offer you opportunities to reach a wider audience but, to avoid copyright problems, you do need to pay a little more attention to any third party material you incorporate.

Writing a case: copyright questions

What has changed in the way copyright affects cases? In this article we’ll explore creating, teaching, distributing and handling permissions for your case.

Types of content

• Naturally, you will have the involvement of the company described in the case, and copyright releases for all the work you have done together.
• Next, there is your own text, and perhaps also your own images. These may automatically be owned by your business school, depending on the arrangement you have with them.
• Are you using public domain material, or content offered under an open licence? Look out for any special terms which might trip you up: for example, some open licences don’t allow you to make modifications.
• Content found freely accessible online can cause problems, as so much is uploaded in breach of copyright, whether knowingly or not. Identifying who legitimately owns copyright is therefore important, but not always easy.
• Begin by applying a “common sense” test. Is it clear who created the material, and does that match with the name of the user who uploaded it on the webpage where you found it?
• If the material is no longer protected by copyright, have you considered other related rights? For example, a figure might have been adapted from another work.

Tips for clearing permissions

• Both in print and online?
• Only for course participants at your school, or also available externally?
• How many participants/readers are expected?
• Licence period, territory (usually worldwide), language/s used?
• Are you likely to be able to clear a licence which covers all the above?
• If it’s likely to be difficult, an alternative source might be quicker and less complicated.
• Start early! Rights holders will sometimes take time to respond, but you cannot assume they agree if they are slow to reply! It could happen that your request is refused.
• If you don’t hear back promptly, chase for a reply but wait before publishing.

Copyright rules are still catching up with the nuances of linking to or embedding third party content. This is further complicated by the fact that digital publishing is, effectively, worldwide, so we have to bear in mind the approaches taken by multiple jurisdictions.

A recent case in the German courts, for instance, ruled that you should only use links to properly authorised content. That might sound obvious, but sites such as Google Images and YouTube do not themselves own any of the content featured on their sites .

It’s therefore entirely up to you to check whether material has been uploaded by the legitimate rights holder, or by someone else. Certain rights holders also require you to notify them when you link, though this is quick to do.

When you receive a request for reuse

You may find that requests for republication or permission come to you directly, either as a brief email or publisher’s contract. However, many schools retain copyright in the work you have carried out as part of your faculty role, in which case they will negotiate licences directly. Check with the person who manages copyright at your school.

Avoiding pitfalls: reuse in a textbook

Let’s take an example: a publisher wants to republish your case, perhaps in a textbook, and sends you their standard contract. The fees for such reuse can vary widely vary depending on the amount of material being used and the level of anticipated sales.

However, there can also be copyright issues:

• teaching use – you want to be sure that you can still use the case in your teaching: check what the contract says about exclusivity, and reuse after publication.
• permissions – usually you and/or the school are responsible for any necessary clearances. Make sure you have – and keep – all permission records. If a copyright holder makes a legal claim after publication, this will be passed on to you.
• signatories – as above, make sure you know whether it’s you or the school who should agree the licence.
• Ask whether your business school provides copyright guidelines and templates you can use.
• When writing a case, remember to check all materials in case you need permission.
• Make sure you’re using authorised sources, to avoid disputes.
• If someone approaches you requesting permission, check first whether that request should go straight to your school.
• Ask whether your business school has run a Copyright Audit to clarify the copyrights they own or have licensed. It’s a great way to get a clear view of copyright assets and risks, and to set out realistic and practical next steps.

More case method features

Clare helps organisations to manage copyright issues and digital licensing, especially where licence terms need to be both effective and practical.

In this introductory guide to writing cases we'll discuss choosing a format, explore how to inspire classroom discussion and discover how to publish your case.

A guide to case writing

Most popular.

• Preview copies

In this introductory guide to teaching with cases we ask why teach with cases, explore how to prepare for case teaching, and introduce some tools and techniques. 

Discover more

ChatGPT: A Case Study on Copyright Challenges for Generative AI Systems

European Journal of Risk Regulation (2023), 1–23

23 Pages Posted: 25 Jun 2023 Last revised: 6 Sep 2023

Nicola Lucchi

Universitat Pompeu Fabra - Department of Law

Date Written: June 12, 2023

This article focuses on copyright issues pertaining to generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems, with particular emphasis on the ChatGPT case study as a primary exemplar. In order to generate high-quality outcomes, generative artificial intelligence (AI) systems necessitate substantial quantities of training data, which may frequently comprise copyright protected information. This prompts inquiries into the legal principles of fair use, the creation of derivative works, and the lawfulness of data gathering and utilization. The utilization of input data for the purpose of training and enhancing AI models presents significant concerns regarding potential violations of copyright. This paper offers suggestions for safeguarding the interests of copyright holders and competitors, while simultaneously addressing legal challenges and expediting the advancement of artificial intelligence technologies. This study analyzes the ChatGPT platform as a case example to explore the necessary modifications that copyright regulations must undergo to adequately tackle the intricacies of authorship and ownership in the realm of AI-generated creative content.

Keywords: Copyright; Artificial Intelligence; Language Models; ChatGPT; Intellectual Property; Training data; Data sharing

JEL Classification: K10; K22

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Nicola Lucchi (Contact Author)

Universitat pompeu fabra - department of law ( email ).

Ramon Trias Fargas 25-27 Barcelona, 08005 Spain

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, intellectual property: copyright law ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Entrepreneurship & Law eJournal

Law & society: private law - intellectual property ejournal, artificial intelligence - law, policy, & ethics ejournal, innovation law & policy ejournal.

Search Form

Bateman case study competition.

It takes hard work and determination to compete on the national stage. 

The College of Journalism and Mass Communications' award-winning Bateman Case Study Competition Team digs deep to research, plan, implement and evaluate a public relations campaign for a national client. 

About the 2024 Client

The 2024 Competition focused on Culturs , and tasked students with creating awareness of the magazine on college campuses and its mission to enhance community and foster human connection of culturally fluid communities of multiethnic, multicultural, mixed race and geographically mobile people which includes immigrants, refugees and Third Culture Kids. Culturs activates 21st century cultural diversity, because everyone should feel like they matter.

At UNL, the Bateman team took an affirming, positive approach to promoting Culturs and inclusivity with its "See Yourself" campaign. This multi-week effort combined interactive events and targeted outreach with engaging social posts and moving video interviews that featured multicultural members of the UNL campus community sharing their personal stories. Judges awarded UNL national honorable mention in the 2024 competition.

About the Class

Students can enroll in either ADPR 339 or ADPR 439 during the spring semester. ADPR 439 may be used as your capstone requirement. Check with your academic advisor before enrolling

This course may require commitments outside of the regularly scheduled class time to participate in competition activities.

About the Program

First established as the National Case Study in 1973 and later renamed to honor the late J. Carroll Bateman, APR, the Public Relations Student Society of America Bateman Case Study Competition challenges teams of students to research, plan, implement and evaluate a public relations campaign for an actual client. More than 75 teams enter the competition each year, giving students real-world experience that can translate to résumé additions, portfolio pieces and even jobs. After an extensive judging process, three finalists are chosen to present their campaigns to the sponsor, who receives the right to ideas presented.

In 2022, CoJMC won first place in the competition for their campaign " 1 for 1 ." The campaign raised awareness of lymphoma and the challenges adolescents and young adults can face when diagnosed with lymphoma. In 2023 and 2024, UNL earned national honorable mention awards.

Meet the Faculty

To apply students must submit a course application, a resume, a cover letter and a link to a portfolio or work and complete an interview. Applications are open from September 1 to 30. 

Frequently Asked Questions

Any student who meets the course prerequisites can apply for Bateman. Visit the undegraduate catelog to see the prerequisites for ADPR 339 and ADPR 439 . 

This course is reserved for students selected to serve on the Bateman Case Study Competition team. Bateman is an annual challenge sponsored by the Public Relations Student Society of America (PRSSA) . Students participating in this course, and the Bateman Competition, will put into practice public relations principles, research methods, strategic planning, campaign design, implementation, and evaluation, including hands-on skills such as creating content for digital and social media, generating publicity, and planning and hosting events.

Yes. Visit the undegraduate catelog to see the prerequisites for ADPR 339 and ADPR 439 . 

To apply students must submit a course application, a resume, a cover letter and a link to a portfolio or work and complete an interview.

Students selected for the Bateman team must be dues-paying members of Public Relations Student Society of America (PRSSA) or pay dues and join PRSSA immediately upon selection. An annual PRSSA membership is $55 and provides valuable benefits for career development. Financial assistance may be available, if needed.

Featuring breaking news and thoughtful analysis from across the dynamic global content industry

Trending topics

• Artificial Intelligence (AI)
• Copyright Licensing & Permissions
• Information Management
• Open Access (OA)

Latest blog posts

Harness the Transformative Power of AI Across Your Organization while Remaining Copyright Compliant

Navigating Copyright in Medical Communications

The Stakes Are High: Why I am Tackling AI and Copyright Head-On

Transforming Standards with FAIR Principles

Recent posts.

Preparing for Renewal Season – Using Analytics to Justify Subscribed Content

Topic: Information Management

The primary goal for information managers is to provide the information their internal users need to meet their research objectives.

By Jackie Fucile

Enhance Curriculum with Copyrighted Content

Topic: Classroom & Curriculum

Districts and educators have never had a better opportunity to help support teachers and engage students with diverse, inclusive, and local curriculum materials while complying with copyright law.

By Samantha Kalman

Preparing for Renewal Season – Planning Token Package Purchases

RightFind Business Intelligence from CCC offers analytics to support data-driven content investment decisions.

Tracey Armstrong Delivers Remarks at the 2024 Indian Publishers Conference

Topic: Company News

Armstrong highlighted the role of RROs and Collective Management during her intervention, particularly given the challenges AI is posing to the publishing industries.

True or False? Addressing Common Assumptions About Copyright and AI

Topic: Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Copyrighted materials are the fuel for artificial intelligence (AI) systems, but misunderstandings persist about how copyright applies to the use of content as training material for AI models.

By Beth Johnson

Project-Based Learning: Is It Really a New Concept?

Education is a natural process carried out by the child and is not acquired by listening to words but by experiences in the environment.

CCC Launches Collective AI License

Topic: Artificial Intelligence (AI) | Company News | Copyright Licensing & Permissions

As AI continues to revolutionize corporate operations, a new collective licensing solution from CCC ensures that both content creators and users can thrive.

Respect Creators & Power AI

Topic: Artificial Intelligence (AI) | Copyright Licensing & Permissions

AI outcomes are strengthened by reliance on responsibly sourced copyrighted works. How can we reap the rewards of these technologies, while protecting the rights of content creators?

CCC Announces Collective Solution for Internal AI Licenses

Topic: Artificial Intelligence (AI) | Company News

CCC officially announces their first long-in-development licensing program for AI re-use rights.

Adding Value to Ed Tech Applications Through Expanded Access to High-Quality Content

The burgeoning U.S. education technology industry has equipped the nation’s schools and homes with a vast array of tools, services and programs to support learning. In doing so, the ed tech industry has forever changed how teachers teach and how students learn.

Enter the URL below into your favorite RSS reader.

A case study of the assistive technology network in Sierra Leone before and after a targeted systems-level investment

• Citation (BibTeX)

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

If this problem reoccurs, please contact Scholastica Support

Error message:

View more stats

Many people with disabilities in low-income settings, such as Sierra Leone, do not have access to the assistive technology (AT) they need, yet research to measure and address this issue remains limited. This paper presents a case study of the Assistive Technology 2030 (AT2030) funded Country Investment project in Sierra Leone. The research explored the nature and strength of the AT stakeholder network in Sierra Leone over the course of one year, presenting a snapshot of the network before and after a targeted systems level investment.

Mixed-method surveys were distributed via the Qualtrics software twice, in December 2021 and September 2022 to n=20 and n=16 participants (respectively). Qualitative data was analyzed thematically, while quantitative data was analyzed with the NodeXL software and MS Excel to generate descriptive statistics, visualizations, and specific metrics related to indegree, betweenness and closeness centrality of organizations grouped by type.

Findings suggest the one-year intervention did stimulate change within the AT network in Sierra Leone, increasing the number of connections within the AT network and strengthening existing relationships within the network. Findings are also consistent with existing data suggesting cost is a key barrier to AT access for both organizations providing AT and people with disabilities to obtain AT.

While this paper is the first to demonstrate that a targeted investment in AT systems and policies at the national level can have a resulting impact on the nature and strength of the AT, it only measures outcomes at one-year after investment. Further longitudinal impact evaluation would be desirable. Nonetheless, the results support the potential for systemic investments which leverage inter-organizational relationships and prioritize financial accessibility of AT, as one means of contributing towards increased access to AT for all, particularly in low-income settings.

Assistive technology (AT) is an umbrella term which broadly encompasses assistive products (AP) and the related services which improves function and enhances the user’s participation in all areas of life. 1 Assistive products are “any external products (including devices, equipment, instruments and software) […] with the primary purpose to maintain or improve an individual’s functioning and independence and/or well-being, or to prevent impairments and secondary health conditions”. 2

Recently, awareness for the urgent need to improve access to Assistive Technology has expanded, as 2022 global population statistics highlights one in three people, or 2.5 billion people, requires at least one assistive product. 1 The demand for AT is projected to increase to 3.5 billion people by 2050, yet 90% of them lack access to the products and services they need. 1 , 3 A systemic approach which adequately measures outcomes and impact is urgently required to stimulate evidence-based policies and systems which support universal access to AT. 1 , 4 , 5 However, a systemic approach first necessitates baseline understandings of the existing system, inclusive of sociopolitical context and the key stakeholders working within that context.

Assistive technology is necessary for people with disabilities to engage in activities of daily living, such as personal care or employment, and social engagement. 6 Moreover, people with disabilities also require AT to enact their basic human rights, as outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). 7 Unfortunately, many people do not have access to the AT they require, an inequity which is perpetuated within low-income settings. 8 Despite this growing disparity and a well-documented association between poverty and disability, 9 research gaps remain related to AT within low-income settings in the global South. 10

In Sierra Leone, the national prevalence of disability is estimated to be 1.3%, according to the most recent population and housing census data. 11 , 12 This is unusually low, as compared to the 16% global prevalence (World Health Organization, 2022). National stakeholders within the AT network argue this statistic does not adequately represent the true scope of disability in Sierra Leone. 10 Their stance is supported by survey data from the Rapid Assistive Technology Assessment (rATA) across a subset of the population in Freetown, which indicated a dramatically different picture: a 24.9% prevalence of self-reported disability on the basis of the Washington Group Questions (20.6% reported as having “some difficulty”, while 4.3% rated “a lot of difficulty” or above), predominantly mobility and vision related disabilities. 13 The rATA also highlighted 62.5% of older people surveyed indicated having a disability, while the incidence of disability among females was nearly 2% higher than in males. 13

Despite the 2011 Sierra Leone Disability Act being implemented, access to AT in Sierra Leone remains poor. 13 The rATA suggests only 14.9% of those with disabilities in Freetown have the assistive products they require, an alarming rate which also fails to consider people with disabilities not surveyed in rural Sierra Leone where access to such services is likely lower. 13 Meanwhile, it is estimated over half of the population of Sierra Leone lives in poverty, with 13% in extreme poverty. 14 As affordability ranks as the top barrier for AT access, poverty further perpetuates the challenges of people with disabilities within this subset of the population to access necessary AT. 13 Within the context of low-resource settings it is therefore imperative that those resources which are allocated to provide assistive products are used in the most optimal manner, and that different stakeholders work together to co-construct a systemic approach which can identify and prioritise those most in need.

This paper presents a dataset collected in tandem with an Assistive Technology 2030 (AT2030) funded Country Investment project in Sierra Leone in collaboration with Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI). The study aimed to explore the nature and strength of the assistive technology stakeholder network in Sierra Leone over the course of one year through a mixed methods survey methodology. We provide a systemic snapshot of the AT network in Sierra Leone, highlighting what assistive products are available, who provides and receives them, and how. We also present a relational analysis of the existing AT network, inclusive of the organizations working within areas of AT and their degrees of connectivity and collaboration amongst one another. We hope that such data can strengthen the provision of AT in Sierra Leone through identifying assistive product availability, procurement, and provision, as well as the nature of the relationships between (the relationality ) of the AT network. We also sought to provide an overview of any possible changes to the network over the course of a one-year investment by AT2030.

This study used a mixed methods survey approach, facilitated by Qualtrics online survey software. Surveys were collaboratively developed and distributed at the two time periods in December 2021 and September 2022 (herein respectively described as Baseline=T1 and Follow Up= T2).

Intervention

This paper presents the Sierra Leone country project built within a larger, targeted investment in assistive technology systems development in four African countries,by AT2030, a project led by the Global Disability Innovation Hub and funded by UK Aid. The four in-country projects were administered by Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) in partnership with local government ministries and agencies. As part of this investment, CHAI and its partners convened a Technical Working Group which brought together key stakeholders in the assistive technology field. Over the course of one year, the Technical Working Group had an overarching goal to develop and strengthen key assistive technology related policies in each of the four countries. The data in this study on the AT network in Sierra Leone was collected at the outset and following completion of the AT2030 investment, by researchers who were not part of the investment process, thus allowing for third-party evaluation. To maintain objectivity, neither CHAI nor the funder were responsible for the design, data collection, analysis or reporting of results, but this paper has benefited from a programmatic perspective provided by CHIA.

Participants

Participants included members of relevant ministries involved in assistive technology leadership and/or delivery, and staff representing relevant non-profit organizations (both international and local), service providers and organizations for persons with disabilities. Participants were asked to respond on behalf of their organization. All prospective participants were identified by the researchers and local project partners, including those coordinating the investment identified above, and added to a distribution list on Qualtrics, which only contained pertinent identifying information such as name, organization, and email. Over the course of the study, n=20 (T1) and n=16 (T2) participants consented to and completed surveys. While the relatively small sample size may inherently restrict the generalizability of this study, the sample size is reflective of the size of the assistive technology network in Sierra Leone, which we aimed to explore.

Data collection

The survey was emailed to the distribution list at two time points: December 2021 (T1) and September 2022 (T2). Two reminder emails were sent out via Qualtrics at two-week intervals following each time point, to participants who had not yet completed the surveys as a means to stimulate participant retention. The T1 and T2 surveys were identical, however the T2 survey utilized display logic functionalities such as conditional skipping to prevent retained respondents from completing redundant questions such as demographic information. If a participant completed the survey for the first time during the T2 period, they received the survey in its entirety without conditional skipping.

Survey content

Survey questions aimed to capture what AT is available, how it is being provided, who is receiving it and how. Questions also consisted of demographic information and qualitative prompts to identify participants’ roles within the AT network and critical challenges experienced in enacting their roles, as well as the nature and strength of relationships between stakeholders. Additional data was collected on participatory engagement in policy development, knowledge of assistive technology, and capacity for leadership which will be published separately.

Using the methodology reported by Smith and colleagues, 15 the WHO priority assistive products list was provided for respondents to select the products and associated services their organization provides. Additionally, the survey requested respondents to select from a list of organizations, which ones they were aware of as working within AT areas in Sierra Leone, followed by a subsequent 5-point Likert scale (1-5, 1= no relationship, 5= collaboration) to indicate which organizations they had working relationships with and to what extent. In attempts to maximize response rates and maintain participant retention, two reminder emails were sent to participants for T1 and T2; however, challenges encountered were participant drop-out from T1 to T2.

Data analysis

Data was reviewed across the two time periods and descriptive statistics (counts and means) were calculated for all variables using MS Excel software. Qualitative data employed content analysis of the text responses from each open-ended survey question, with a particular emphasis on themes which represented commonalities or a lack of representation across all stakeholders. Network data was analyzed using the NodeXL software and MS Excel to generate visualizations, and specific metrics related to indegree, betweenness and closeness centrality of organizations grouped by organization type. Indegree represents the total number of incoming connections per organization, while weighted indegree represents the sum of weights (strength) of each connection. Closeness centrality represents the relationship of the organization to the centre of the network (lower scores indicate greater centrality). To accommodate for different response rates at baseline and follow up, indegree was calculated as a proportion of incoming connections out of the total respondents (n) for that time point. Weighted indegree was calculated as a proportion of the sum of weights of incoming connections divided by the total possible weighting for the respondents for that time point (i.e. n*5). Statistical comparisons for overall network metrics across T1 and T2 were calculated using a paired t-test in SPSS v.28. While means are also reported by organization type as a subsample of the overall data, no statistical tests were carried out due to small subsample sizes.

The study received ethical approval from Maynooth University and the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee. Each survey contained a mandatory informed consent section which required completion prior to respondents accessing the survey questions. Respondents were not required to answer any specific questions and were not coerced to participate. All respondents received a unique identification code to preserve anonymity, and any identifying information was removed prior to data analysis.

A total of 27 participants from 24 organizations participated in the surveys across both baseline and follow-up time points (T1 n=20 and T2 n= 16). Nine individuals and 11 organizations were retained across both T1 and T2 surveys. The majority of participants represented International non-governmental organizations (n=9), followed by Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (n=8), Government Ministry (n=4), Service Delivery organisations (n=4) and Academic Institutions (n=2).

Additionally, the respondents were requested to identify multiple areas of AT that their organizations were aligned with. Advocacy ranked as the top selection (24.5%), followed by direct service provision (14.9%), human resources and capacity building (14.9%), policy or systems development (13.8%), product selection and/or procurement (13.8%), data and information systems (11.7%), and financing (6.4%).

Assistive Products in Sierra Leone

Participants were asked to select from the APL which products and/or product services they provide. Manual wheelchairs, crutches, canes, lower limb prosthetics and orthopaedic footwear were the most selected across both time points. Table 1 lists summarises the types of assistive products and services provided in Sierra Leone, and the number of organisations providing each product and/or service across all 50 APL products.

*Other assistive product offered but not on the Assistive Product List **Assistive product not provided, only service related to the prescription, servicing and maintenance, and customization of that Assistive product

Respondents indicated that the products they provide were most commonly procured by their organizations through purchase (38.7%), followed by donation (29%), building products themselves (22.6%) or other (9.7%), which was explicated as recycling used products.

Providers of Assistive Products in Sierra Leone

Participants were asked to indicate whether their organization provided assistive products and/or related services. The findings highlighted 38.3% of stakeholders directly provided AT and 40.4% directly provided AT related services to beneficiaries, while only 21.3% indicated they do not provide AT or AT related services at all.

More specifically, respondents who did indicate providing products and/or services indicated they provided the following services: provision of locally made assistive products, repairs and maintenance of assistive products, education and training of users on the utility of assistive products, referrals of people with disabilities to service providers, prosthetic and orthotics, accessibility assessments, and rehabilitation service provision. Participants whom do not directly provide AT or AT related services indicated their work falls within AT advocacy, fundraising, procurement, policy, and research.

When asked about the challenges they experienced procuring and distributing these products to beneficiaries, qualitative data indicated difficulty sourcing materials, challenges obtaining products due to poor infrastructure, poor quality standards and/or customizability of products, and low technical and managerial support as common barriers. High product and material costs and inadequate funds from both the organizations and beneficiaries was the most commonly cited challenge.

Beneficiaries of Assistive Products in Sierra Leone

When probed on the number of clients they served each month, respondents indicated the range of beneficiaries spanned from as little as 10 per month to upwards of 1000, while one respondent noted there was no fixed number as they serve at the national level. Respondents noted that their beneficiaries were predominantly people with mobility related disabilities or functional limitations (21.4%), closely followed by people with vision disabilities (17.9%), communication disabilities (15.4%) and hearing disabilities (13.1%).

Participants emphasized children and adolescents were the highest populations served, with an equal representation among the ages of 5-12 (23.7%) and 13-18 (23.7%). Adults aged 20-50 years (21%) closely followed, while children under 4 (15.8%) and adults over 50 years of age (15.8%) are equally less represented as beneficiaries of assistive products and services in Sierra Leone.

Respondents whose organizations provide assistive products indicated that their beneficiaries most commonly received APs free of cost (63.2%), followed by client payment (26.3%) and a fixed cost structure (10.5%).

Network Analysis

Respondents were asked to indicate which organizations in the AT network they were aware of, and subsequently to rate the strength of their relationship with the organizations they indicated an awareness of. The degree of relationality among these stakeholders involved in the assistive technology network was then analyzed across the two time points and organizational relationships were visualized using the NodeXL software, presented in Figure 1 and Figure 2 . The colored nodes in the figures depict the various sub-types of organizations, while the lines between the nodes represent their relationships, with thicker lines indicating stronger relationships. The red nodes represent government ministries and agencies, the green represent service delivery organizations, blue represents organization of persons with disabilities, black represents NGOs and yellow represents academic institutions.

Overall, this representation depicts a relatively centralized network with a higher degree of connections between organizations. Furthermore, ministries and government agencies appear towards the centre of the network, indicating a relatively greater role in connecting organizations to one another, however it is noteworthy that these are not the most central organizations in the network.

Table 2 provides quantitative data which demonstrates the overall number and strength of interconnections among the organizations within the assistive technology network in Sierra Leone. Indegree is the number of identified inward connections, or the number of other organizations who identified a connection with that organization. Indegree data are presented as a mean value per organization type to preserve anonymity. The data visualized in Table 2 significantly increased over one year from baseline to follow up, while the relative centrality of organizations did not change, at least over the one-year time period of this study.

SD – standard deviation, NGO – non-governmental organization *Differs significantly from baseline at p<0.01 (two-tailed)

Overall, there was a statistically significant increase in indegree scores between the two timepoints suggesting a higher level of connection among AT organizations in Sierra Leone following the 1-year investment. This suggests those organizations built more relationships and expanded their reach within the AT network. As relationship strength was measured on a 5-point scale (no awareness, awareness, communication, cooperation, collaboration), we can interpret increases in weighted indegree to suggest greater inter-organizational working between members of the network (please refer to Table 2 ).

These findings suggest the one-year intervention did indeed stimulate change within the AT network in Sierra Leone, increasing the number connections within the AT network, and strengthening existing relationships within the network.

The most common assistive products available in Sierra Leone were indicated to be manual wheelchairs, crutches, canes, lower limb prosthetics and orthopaedic footwear. This aligns with our participants ranking mobility related disabilities or functional limitations as the most common reason for beneficiary referral, as well as the rATA data 13 ). The global report on AT notes “the type, complexity, magnitude and duration of a humanitarian crisis impacts the need for and supply of assistive technology”. 1 When we factor in the sociopolitical context of Sierra Leone and its history of civil war, and the population requiring these products due to political violence, such as lower limb amputations, it is also not surprising that mobility related products are so widely available due to population need. Moreover, as many low-income settings procure their products through donations, often from abroad, these items are probable to be in high circulation in relation to the high global prevalence of mobility related disabilities, likely shaping what products donors perceive as being most relevant. 1

Interestingly, data from the rATA shows the people with disabilities who did have AP, most often obtained their product(s) through purchase, despite cost being the most significant barrier to access. 13 As such, these APs were often purchased through informal and unregulated providers who offer lower costs, such as market vendors. 16 In comparison, our findings demonstrated AT stakeholders providing AP did so predominantly at no-cost. This discrepancy could suggest those who need AT most are not aware of the regulated providers who offer free AP and/or AP services in Sierra Leone, or they simply cannot access them due to infrastructural barriers, or not having AT needed to navigate their environment in the first place. For example, our data highlighted only two organizations offering spectacles, yet the rATA indicated spectacles as being the most common AP obtained by people with disabilities sampled in Sierra Leone. This further supports our interpretation that access to free APs is limited if only a small subset of regulated providers are offering them, leading to an increased reliance on people with disabilities procuring APs from informal and unregulated providers in Sierra Leone. An interconnected and coherent national AT network could offer a way forward, should collaborative relationships among AT stakeholders continue to forge and their collective resources, contacts and beneficiaries were to be cross-pollinated for the advancement of beneficiary access.

As technology and what constitutes as AT continues to advance, juxtaposed with the prevalence of disability increasing, there is a risk that the gap in access to AT will continue to rise. 17 It is therefore paramount that the goal of improving AT related outcomes, such as improved access to AT for all, is first warranted by the measurement of such outcomes. 4 This paper has attempted to provide a systemic snapshot of the AT network in Sierra Leone, highlighting key information such as what assistive products are presently available, who provides them, who receives them (and how), and the relational cohesion of the network itself.

This paper is the first to demonstrate that a targeted investment in assistive technology systems and policies at the national level can have a resulting impact on the nature and strength of the assistive technology ecosystem relationships. It is therefore recommended as an intervention to engage stakeholders within the assistive technology space, in particular policy makers who have power to formulate AP related policy and access. However, this work is limited in scope as it only provides a reassessment of outcomes following the one-year investment, and does provide a more longitudinal evaluation of the impact of that investment in the longer term.

Future research is recommended to replicate the work done to date to evaluate whether there is an improvement in access to assistive technologies over a longer period of time as a result of targeted policy and systems change, as well as larger impacts on policy formulation for AP access. For example, attention to data collection of which types and categories of AP are being manufactured locally can inform policy formation to encourage continuity of local manufacturing, while improving access to AP. Moreover, further studies to investigate factors influencing limited uptake of free AP by persons with disabilities, as explicated above and discovered in this study, are recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

Cohesive AT networks are particularly important in low-income settings such as Sierra Leone, where the intersection of poverty and disability disproportionately reduces people with disabilities’ access to the AT they need. Power and colleagues 18 have proposed the Assistive Technology Embedded Systems Thinking (ATEST) Model as a way of conceptualising the embedded relationships between individual-community- system-country-world influences on assistive technology provision. This paper suggests that even where resources are scarce and systemic relationships are uneven, an internationally-funded investment, which embraces the participation of country-level stakeholders and service providing organisations can result in enhanced inter-organisational working, which in turn has the potential to use existing resources more optimally, allowing greater access to services for individuals most in need.

The findings of this paper demonstrate an increase in organizational collaboration can strengthen assistive technology networks, however key barriers to access remain cost for both organizations providing AT and people with disabilities to obtain AT. Future work should use systemic approaches to leverage organizational relationality and prioritize financial accessibility of AT within systemic approaches to AT policy and practice, to leverage existing resources (particularly no-cost AT) and advance towards the ultimate goal of increased access to AT for all.

Ethics Statement

Ethical approval for the study was granted by Maynooth University and the Sierra Leone Ethics and Scientific Review Committee. The study involved human participants but was not a clinical trial. All participants provided informed consent freely and were aware they could withdraw from the study at any time.

Data Availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this article.

This work was funded by the Assistive Technology 2030 project, funded by the United Kingdom Foreign Commonwealth Development Office (FCDO; UK Aid) and administered by the Global Disability Innovation Hub.

Authorship Contributions

Stephanie Huff led the manuscript preparation and contributed to data analysis. Emma M. Smith led the research design, data collection, analysis and contributed to manuscript preparation. Finally, Malcolm MacLachlan contributed to research design, analysis, manuscript review, and supervision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Disclosure of interest

The authors completed the ICMJE Disclosure of Interest Form (available upon request from the corresponding author) and disclose no relevant interests.

Correspondence to:

Emma M. Smith Maynooth University Maynooth, Co. Kildare Ireland [email protected]

Submitted : February 27, 2024 BST

Accepted : June 26, 2024 BST

A case study approach to exploring the New Product Development Process for frugal innovation

Thesis type.

• Thesis (PhD)

Thesis note

Copyright statement, supervisors, usage metrics.

Non-performing Loan and Its Management in Ethiopia: A case study on Dashen Bank Mekelle Area Bank, in Tigray

Ids item types, copyright holder, usage metrics.