Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
direct_financial_benefit [2016/06/17 20:26] – Carlos Pedraza | direct_financial_benefit [Unknown date] (current) – external edit (Unknown date) 127.0.0.1 | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
====== Direct Financial Benefit ====== | ====== Direct Financial Benefit ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | <wrap lo>See also: // | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{page> | ||
Under U.S. law, a defendant in a copyright infringement case can incur secondary liability, or indirect infringement, | Under U.S. law, a defendant in a copyright infringement case can incur secondary liability, or indirect infringement, | ||
Proving such acts, known as vicarious copyright infringement, | Proving such acts, known as vicarious copyright infringement, | ||
+ | |||
+ | In January 2017, a federal judge made a ruling in response to both sides' requests for [[summary judgment]]. While he denied the summary judgment he did rule on the counts of contributory and vicarious copyright infringement. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <WRAP right round box 50%> | ||
+ | // | ||
+ | </ | ||
===== Vicarious Copyright Infringement ===== | ===== Vicarious Copyright Infringement ===== | ||
Line 9: | Line 19: | ||
Unlike trademark law, which is codified in U.S. statutes, secondary liability rules in copyright matters have solely been a product of case law; courts, rather than Congress, have been the primary developers of theories and policies concerning secondary liability. | Unlike trademark law, which is codified in U.S. statutes, secondary liability rules in copyright matters have solely been a product of case law; courts, rather than Congress, have been the primary developers of theories and policies concerning secondary liability. | ||
- | <WRAP right round alert 50%> | + | The copyright infringement lawsuit brought by [[CBS]] and [[Paramount Pictures]] against producer [[Alec Peters]] and his company, [[Axanar Productions]], |
- | <wrap lo>< | + | |
- | </WRAP> | + | > Vicarious copyright infringement requires a direct financial benefit from the infringement and the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity. Originally, the “direct financial benefit” element was interpreted to apply to financial benefits in proportion to the infringing activity, such as a royalty or commission “directly” related to the infringement. See, e.g., Shapiro, Bernstein & Co. v. H. L. Green Co., 316 F.2d 304 (2d Cir. 1963). Over time, however, the concept of “direct financial benefit” has been stretched to cover situations in which the financial benefit from the infringement was neither any immediate revenue nor any value correlated with the infringing activity itself. Thus, in Napster, “direct” financial benefit was found where the availability of infringing matter was said to act as a “draw” for web site users and where “Napster’s future revenue |
+ | |||
+ | [{{ : | ||
+ | |||
+ | === Peters Personally Profited === | ||
+ | |||
+ | In his January 4, 2017, preliminary ruling Federal [[judge_r._gary_klausner|Judge R. Gary Klausner]] found that Peters indeed personally profited from Axanar, and that if the jury [[fair_use_denied# | ||
- | The copyright infringement lawsuit brought by [[CBS]] and [[Paramount Pictures]] against producer [[Alec | + | > Peters’ substantial involvement in, such as writing script for, the Axanar |
- | > Vicarious | + | ---- |
+ | **Keywords** {{tag>lawsuit |