Copyright – Chloe > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

(78 cards)

Study These Flashcards
1
Q

Feist

A

Originality=independent creation + modest amount of creativity (white pages)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Alfred Bell

A

Originality doesn’t require intent to be original

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Bleistein

A

Aesthetic neutrality–doesn’t have to be non-commercial or “art” to be protected.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Mannion v Coors

A

Baseball star billboard: photos can be original in timing, rendition, and composition (creation of subject)
Tryable question of fact on aesthetic appeal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Eldred

A

Idea/expression dichotomy necessary to reconcile copyright with the first amendment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Alexander v. Haley

A

Roots case: some elements are indispensable or standard in a given topic (scenes a faire)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Bill Diodata v. Kate Spade

A

women’s shoes sitting on toilet common trope

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Baker v. Selden

A

Can copyright a book about process, but can’t copyright the process itself (accounting system)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Fairey v. AP

A

Hope poster: question about whether pose was copyrightable or scenes a faire in US political iconography. Can’t copyright style

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

LaChappelle v Rihanna

A

Whether what’s common is S+M scenes a faire or infringement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Hoehling

A

Can’t copyright historical facts, but copyright estoppel if I’ve claimed something is fact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Lotus v Boreland

A

Menu hierarchy is “method of operation” under 102(b), like buttons on a VCR (CA1)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Oracle v Google

A

102(b) just restates the idea/expression distinction; APIs protectable. Original and creative declaring codes and structure, sequence, and organization (SSOs) of Oracle’s 37 Java API packages are © protected, not just method of operation

Big circuit split. More plaintiff-friendly than Altai (but uses that test)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Anderson

A

Characters protectable if well-delineated (Rocky)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

DC Comics v Towle

A

Batmobile protectable: 1) physical and conceptual qualities, 2) sufficiently delineated, 3) especially distinctive/unique elements of expression

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Barnhard

A

Mannequins: test for conceptual separability whether form dictated by function

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Keiselstein Cord

A

Belt buckles: test for conceptual separability which aspect is primary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Newman Barnhard dissent

A

Test for conceptual separability temporal displacement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Brandir

A

Bike rack–not conceptually separable because creator not “uninhibited by functional considerations” (intent of creator test)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Pivot Point

A

“Hungry look” mannequins protectable because creator had a lot of artistic discretion (intent of creator test)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Star Athletica

A

Conceptual separability if 1) can be perceived as art separate from the useful article and 2) would qualify as a protectable work on its own (doesn’t have to be equally useful or fully functioning)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Shine v Childs

A

Freedom Tower case: ordinary observer “total concept and feel” test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Liebskind

A

Zigzagging Jewish museum in Berlin resembles Australian museum. Never litigated, but public shaming

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Lindsay v RMST

A

Filmmaker still author even though he didn’t handle cameras–creative control and veto decision-making

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Thomson v Larson
Larson didn't intend dramaturg to be considered join author (though she got paid for copyrightable contribution)
26
Aalmuhammed v Lee
consultant on Malcolm X movie made copyrightable contribution but was not an "author" -- control, objective manifestation of shared intent, audience appeal turns on both contributions and you can't tell the share
27
Cybersound
One joint author can't grant an exclusive license because that's limiting the rights of other joint authors (CA9)
28
CCNV v Reid (SC)
12 factors on whether someone is an employee for purposes of work for hire: 1. Hiring party's right to control 2. Skill required 3. Source of tools 4. Location of labor 5. Duration of relationship 6. Right to assign additional projects 7. Control over hours 8. Method of payment 9. Right to hire assistants 10. Business of hiring party 11. Employee benefits 12. Tax treatment
29
Avtec (CA4)
Scope of employment test: kind of work employed to perform, authorized space and time, at least in part to serve employer
30
King
speech case: for purposes of mandator notice, publication only if tangible copies distributed to public or displayed in a way that invites unrestricted copying
31
Golan
URAA taking works out of the public domain not beyond Congress's power
32
Eldred
Copyright Term Extension Act constitutional
33
Fred Fisher v Wittmark
Expectancy in renewal right assignable, but only effective if author survives
34
NYT v Tasini
Articles from print publications collected on Lexis not shielded by 201(c) because reproduced without original content
35
Cablevision
Transitory duration not enough
36
Bridgeport Music
De minimis defense not available for sampling sound recordings
37
Altai (CA2)
Abstraction/filtration/comparison test, often used for software, favors developers (filters out efficiency, external factors, public domain)
38
Boisson
More discerning ordinary observer test (same aesthetic appeal)
39
Ideal Toy Corp
"Apparent appropriation" SS standard
40
Kroft
"Total concept and feel" SS standard (McDonaldLand)
41
Swirsky
CA9 extrinsic/intrinsic test: triable issue of extrinsic similarity of Mariah Carey song
42
Rogers v Koons
sculpture of dog photo similarity (composition, expressions)
43
Harney
kidnapping photo in movie only similar in faces/pose. If not scenes a faire, minimal originality
44
Leibovitz
even though based on Venus painting, yes substantial similarity with Demi Moore photo (position, composition) BUT fair use
45
Three Boys Music
extrinsic-intrinsic test, subconscious copying, unique combination of elements can show access by wide dissemination
46
Steinberg v Columbia Pictures
Apparent appropriation of New Yorker cartoon: way blocks drawn, made-up elements
47
Rentmeester
Extrinsic-intrinsic test, no substantial similarity (jumpman)
48
Castle Rock
Seinfeld Aptitude Test infringing, but uses 106(1) instead of (2)
49
Lee v ART
Mounting photos on tiles: CA9 thinks it's derivative, CA7 disagrees
50
MicroStar v FormGen
selling CD of user-generated levels is derivative work; MAP file is concrete/permanent like sheet music, infringes story even w/o containing the actual art
51
Quality King
First sale doctrine applies to roundtrip importation (manufactured in US)
52
Kirtsaeng
First sale doctrine applies to things lawfully manufactured abroad
53
Hotaling v LDS
library adding work to public collection is distribution
54
Cablevision
arroyo server --> set-top box not public performance because unique copy for each subscriber
55
Aereo
individual tiny antenna from broadcast to subscribers looks like cable, so public performance
56
Redhorn
transmitting VHS to back room public performance: facility open to public, involves transmission
57
Perfect10
inline linking of thumbnails not the same as hosting images themselves. Thumbnails transformative (entertainment to info retrieval)
58
Redigi
controversial tension between distribution and first sale: allowed streamers who didn't want downloads to sell them. Doesn't work under 109(a)
59
Betamax
Sony not liable for contributory infringement for selling VCRs: capable of substantial noninfringing uses, and time-shifting programs is fair use
60
Harper and Row
Nation scooped Ford autobio: "heart of the work" even though 300-400 words, about Nixon pardon (fair use analysis)
61
Campbell
"Big Hairy Woman" case: created "transformative" element as being at heart of fair use
62
Napster
"commercial" use if "repeated and exploitative copying to save the expense of purchase" (expansive) Napster is CoSNU so lack constructive knowledge, BUT: 1. operators can determine whether copies are legal, so have actual knowledge for contrib. liability 2. for the same reason, supervisory control for vicarious liability
63
Blanch v Koons
Used fashion photos to satirize
64
Gaylord
stamp of Korean War memorial not transformative: same purpose
65
Cariou
Rasta photos mostly transformative because "new expression, meaning, or message" -- doesn't have to comment
66
Authors Guild v Google
Google Books snippets socially beneficial, so transformative (CA9, CA2)
67
Martin v Indianapolis
destruction of large outdoor steel structure no damages under VARA b/c no recognized stature
68
Dastar
Made Lanham Act less helpful for moral rights: no false designation of origin of marketed public domain TV show because just designated origin of tangible videos, not ideas
69
Grokster
Created liability for inducement: "clear expression or other affirmative steps to foster infringement" Advertising illegal uses, targeting customers known to engage in illegal uses, failure to adopt reducing tech (insufficient), commercial sense depends on infringement (insufficient)
70
Cherry Auction
Material contribution satisfied by site and facilities for known infringement Financial interest satisfied by infringement "enhancing attractiveness" of defendant's venue
71
Aimster
Operators couldn't see contents b/c encrypted but tutorials showing how to share music files willful blindness=knowledge (but maybe not enough for VL) failed to establish legitimate uses material contribution: active encouragement through tutorials
72
Viacom v Youtube
Creates ContentID
73
Corley
program that bypasses system preventing burning CDs violates 1201(a)(2). Expansive interpretation of "trafficking," lenient interpretation of "effectively controls access"
74
Frank Music v MGM
when 10 scenes from 10 musicals in an infringing revue, should judge profits on how much his portion contributed
75
Tenenbaum
Massive statutory damages okay
76
Moran
"willful" = knowing you're breaking copyright law
77
Fantasy v Fogerty
Plaintiffs and defendants treated the same for the purposes of attorneys fees
78
Salinger
eBay applies to preliminary injunctions for (c) (i.e., must show actual irreparable harm)
Copyright – Chloe
flashcards
Decks in class (8)
# Cards
Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2026 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions