Importance of Knowing The Famous Cases of Copyright Law

Famous copyright lawsuits over the years have played a large part in how copyright law is shaped today in the United States. The decisions made in early court cases have helped to distinguish between copyrights and patents, pinpointing a clear definition for both aspects of United States Intellectual Property Law. In addition, with the emergence of digital technology came new amendments in copyright laws, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Important court decisions have helped to firmly establish the laws outlined in this Act, becoming a model for future court disputes. For example, one of the more famous copyright cases, Viacom vs. Youtube, Google Inc., showed how important it is for copyright laws to keep up with the fast paced world of technology, while firmly placing responsibility into the hands of companies who manage websites with user-controlled content. Baker v. Selden was an early case that helped mold copyright law by providing a clear difference between copyright material and patentable material.

The case between A&M Records (along with more than a dozen other record companies) vs. Napster was the first time file sharing was examined under U.S. copyright law. It asked the question: is a company responsible for the illegal actions of other people if their program gives users the tools to perform such illegal activities?

Napster was a program that allows users to share music files in the form of MP3s, a music format relatively new at the time, which compressed music into a small size without a substantial drop in audio quality. As MP3 awareness and popularity rose steadily, so did Napster, a tool that gave users the ability to perform illegal file swapping, but at the same time, could be used legally as well.

This was Napster’s main argument, believing that it is not responsible for how its program is used by its customers. This case was the beginning of a long copyright battle in the record industry, fronted by the Recording Industry Association of America, which is still going on today.

Rogers v. Koons: This case showed that in order for a parody to be legal, it must be a commentary on the original artwork itself and cannot be a reproduction with another message entirely.

One of the earliest and most famous copyright disputes occurred in the case of Baker v. Selden. This case helped to clearly outline what material is protected under copyright law. Although the work that Baker created was similar to Selden’s original work, it was decided that Baker had not violated copyright law.

This is because copyrights only protect expressions of ideas, while the ideas themselves are only protected when one obtains a patent. This distinction was incorporated into the U.S. Copyright Act, which was inspired by the Baker v. Selden case.

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. was a copyright infringement case that held remarkable similarities to the famous Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios case, which ruled that the makers of VCR technology cannot be held liable for any illegal copying done by its users. In the same sense, Grokster was argued to be held liable for file sharing technology which users can take advantage of to download copyrighted material such as music and movies.

Grokster had already won two prior victories in court, the latest in the United States District Court for the Central District of California in 2003, where the Sony v. Universal case was cited in the decision. Ultimately, the decision found that Grokster should be held liable for copyright infringement which takes place using the technology it has available on the Internet.

There was argument, however, about how similar this case was with the Sony v. Universal case. It was found that the case had no influence on the court’s final decision. This case led to other peer-to-peer file sharing networks to close down in fear of a lawsuit, while others took more substantial measures to ensure that its users do not use their program for copyright infringement.

IO Group v. Veoh Networks

IO Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. (586 F. Supp. 2d 1132) was a legal case that took place in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California involving Veoh, a company that offers its users internet television for free, and IO Group, producer of adult entertainment. The U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Veoh Networks because the company was protected under the guidelines of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 17 U.S.C. § 512. This copyright infringement case is similar to the famous Viacom vs. Youtube, Google Inc. case.

Like YouTube, Veoh offers a service allowing anyone of its users to upload videos to the website. Veoh understands that users may take advantage of the service to upload content that has been copyrighted, so they established a firm Terms of Use with the intent of protecting itself and its users from legal trouble.

The Terms of Use explained that users are responsible for the content in which they upload and Veoh does not permit copyright infringement of any kind.

They also stated that any account which uploads copyrighted material may be subject to termination through Veoh’s discretion. Veoh’s strict policies are enforced through a system of account termination when an infringing work is uploaded to their servers. If this happens, a user’s account is terminated and their e-mail address is blocked so a new Veoh account cannot be created by that user.

The copyright infringement case emerged in a lawsuit filed by IO Group on June 23, 2006, after it noticed that several of its copyrighted work was available on Veoh’s website. Instead of sending a cease and desist letter, IO Group filed the lawsuit as the first step. The lawsuit claimed Copyright Infringement, Contributory Copyright Infringement, and Vicarious Copyright Infringement. Following the legal action, Veoh had decided not to include adult content on its website.

Under the DMCA, to be within the legal “Safe Harbors” Veoh and other similar companies must meet the following guidelines:

*The company must offer a service provider.

*It must create and enforce a policy which terminates the accounts of repeated infringers and blocks them from future access.

*It must accommodate technical measures that copyright owners have set in place to protect their work.

IO Group did not argue in court that Veoh failed to comply with the above guidelines. Instead, IO chose to accuse Veoh of having an infringement policy which was effective in preventing copyrighted material from being made available online illegally. Veoh, however, was able to prove that they had an adequate system to notify users of infringement policies, as well as establishing a proper system of digital fingerprinting of files. They also responded to all copyright notices they received by taking down the violating videos immediately and the Court agreed that copyright infringement protocol was handled correctly.

IO Group was still not convinced and claimed that Veoh should be required to take further action against repeated infringers by not only blocking e-mail addresses, but names and IP addresses as well. This would prevent users from signing up with different e-mail accounts. The Court disagreed and noted that Veoh did procedures under the guidelines of the DMCA, which does not require a policy system to be perfect, but rather “reasonable”.

Veoh was also proven to pass the “Red Flag Test”, a test that states that if a company does not take action against infringement while having knowledge of it, they should have their “Safe Harbor” status repealed. In addition, many of the video clips claimed by IO Group did not have proper copyright notices on them. The copyright infringement case ended up with a grant of Veoh’s motion for a summary judgment and it was dismissed.

Irving Berlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc.

Irving
Berlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc. (329 F. 2d 541), which took place in 1964,
was one of the many copyright infringement cases which helped shaped
copyright law and parody copyright guidelines. The court case involved Irving
Berlin’s song entitled “A Pretty Girl is Like a Melody”, in which Mad
Magazine, a popular parody magazine, parodied the song and entitled it
“Louella Schwartz Describes Her Malady”. E.C. Publications, Inc., Mad
Magazine’s parent company, was named the defendant in the case.

Mad Magazine, known for its humorous depictions of
pop culture, published a volume called The Worst from Mad No. 4. In it, Mad Magazine had a
feature called “Sing Along with Mad” in which they parodied songs and
printed replacement lyrics to artists’ songs. During the trial, Judge Irving
Kaufman famously stated that, “We doubt that even so eminent a composer as
plaintiff Irving Berlin should be permitted to claim a property interest in
iambic pentameter.” The judge was referring to meters used to establish
the rhythm in which words are arranged on each line of poetry.

The court ruled that the parody song of Irving Berlin’s
work featured in Mad Magazine did not violate parody copyright laws. All other
songs except for two were ruled out at the conclusion of the case. It was found
that two of Mad Magazine’s parodies were too similar to the original songs,
which used the same verbal hooks as the original. Berlin and other music
publishers involved in the case appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, though
they refused to withdraw the victory Mad Magazine had in court.

Of all copyright infringement cases, this one is important to
parody copyright law because it paved the way for parodists to use similar
meter structure of popular songs, a right that is still stands today.

MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.

The
copyright infringement case of MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. was filed in
2003 by MGM, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., a total of 28 other entertainment
companies, against Grokster and Steamcast. Grokster and Steamcast were
Internet companies that offered peer-to-peer file sharing. Peer-to-peer
file sharing, otherwise known as P2P file sharing, is the act of sharing stored
digital information, such as movies, music, documents, and electronic
books. This particular movie copyright suit was filed due to the fact
that a large number of the files that were being shared on these websites were
copyrighted material, some of which belonged to MGM and the other listed
entertainment companies.

In response to the copyright infringement case,
Grokster argued that if the movie copyright suit were to be found in favor of
the plaintiff, this would create the potential grounds for movie copyright
organizations to seek damages in a number of previous acts believed to be
related to peer-to-peer file sharing and copyright infringement. With
this not being the first filed copyright infringement case that Grokster was
named in on behalf of MGM, there was a great deal at stake as to what the final
decision would forecast for future movie copyright regulations.

The
copyright infringement case was originally filed by MGM, along with the 28
entertainment companies, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The copyright infringement case was dismissed in
2003, due to its parallels to the Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios movie copyright
case, and its final verdict. In the Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios
copyright infringement case, the court had to reach a decision as to the
regulation of the VCR.

Movie
copyright lawmakers had to decide whether or not VCR manufacturers would be responsible
for the actions of consumers that used their product on the basis of potential
copyright infringement. In the copyright infringement case of Sony Corp.
v. Universal City Studios, the final verdict by the Supreme Court of the United
States concluded that the function of VCR recording for individual use executed
a person’s right to fair use.

The copyright infringement case of MGM Studios,
Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., was then filed by MGM to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. This second installment of the movie
copyright case was dismissed on the basis of the notion that P2P file sharing
is a method that is lawfully binding. Nevertheless, it was in 2005 that
the United States Supreme Court made the final ruling on the copyright infringement
case, declaring that Grokster, Ltd. and Steamcast were liable for their
involvement in the P2P file sharing being conducted on their networking
sites.

The basis
for the final Supreme Court ruling in the MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
copyright infringement case was that the court saw the defendants’ actions as a
copyright infringement by specifically promoting such practice and capability
to consumers.