How Have Section 512(f) Cases Fared Since 2017? (Spoiler: Not Well)

On Monday, I’m participating in a Copyright Office workshop on Section 512. The workshop supports the Copyright Office’s long-pending Section 512 report, which started in 2015 but stalled out in 2017. To freshen up the project, the workshop will cover developments since 2017. Over 50 “speakers” are participating in the panels, and each has been given a total of 45 *SECONDS* to make introductory remarks. I do talk fast…but not that fast! My incredibly brief remarks will address the caselaw updates on Section 512(f) since 2017. To do this, my RA and I reviewed all of the 512(f) rulings we could find since Jan. 1, 2017. (If you think we missed anything, please let me know!). The rundown: Cases [Note: where a case didn’t do more than refer to Section 512(f), I said it had a “non-substantive reference.”] BMaddox Enters., LLC v. Oskouie, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146766 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2017). Non-substantive reference. Columbia…

Read more detail on Recent Intellectual Property Law posts –

Last search terms:

Related news:

This entry was posted in Intellectual Property and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply