21 Cited authorities

  1. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.

    545 U.S. 913 (2005)   Cited 787 times   31 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable”
  2. Southern California Gas Co. v. City of Santa Ana

    336 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 954 times
    Holding that the deprivation of rights secured by the Contract Clause may “give rise to a cause of action under section 1983” and that Carter “is not to the contrary”
  3. Ellison v. Robertson

    357 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 657 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the district court erred in concluding on summary judgment that [the ISP] satisfied the requirements of § 512" because the record showed that the ISP "allowed notices of potential copyright infringement to fall into a vacuum and to go unheeded," indicating it "had not reasonably implemented its policy against repeat infringers"
  4. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc.

    487 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 468 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an online image search index was "highly transformative"
  5. Perfect 10 v. Visa Intern

    494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007)   Cited 252 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the court may "affirm on any ground supported by the record"
  6. Fonovisa, Inc. v. Cherry Auction, Inc.

    76 F.3d 259 (9th Cir. 1996)   Cited 233 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that operators of a swap meet who had reason to know of infringing activity after law enforcement officers raided the flea market and seized counterfeit merchandise may be held liable for contributory trademark infringement
  7. Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions

    658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011)   Cited 146 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to prove willfulness in the copyright context, plaintiff must show that the defendant was actually aware of infringing activity, or that defendant's actions were the result of "reckless disregard" for, or "willful blindness" to, the copyright holder's rights
  8. Gershwin Pub. Corp. v. Columbia Artists Man

    443 F.2d 1159 (2d Cir. 1971)   Cited 418 times
    Holding that a defendant may "be held liable as a 'contributory' infringer if it were shown to have had knowledge, or reason to know, of the infringing nature of the records"
  9. Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd.

    762 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2014)   Cited 119 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing district court's conclusion that applying Washington's Personality Rights Act to Jimi Hendrix's "limited, non-speculative" post-mortem right to publicity claim gave the statute an "impermissible extraterritorial reach" in violation of the dormant Commerce Clause
  10. Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-line Communication Services, Inc.

    907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995)   Cited 195 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that operator of a computer bulletin board system that forwarded messages from subscribers to other subscribers was not liable for displaying copyrighted works because it took no role in controlling the content of the information but only acted as passive conduit of the information
  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 329,129 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
  12. Rule 5 - Serving and Filing Pleadings and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 5   Cited 22,113 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Allowing service by filing papers with the court's electronic-filing system
  13. Section 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

    17 U.S.C. § 106   Cited 3,751 times   107 Legal Analyses
    Granting the owners of copyrights in “literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works” the exclusive right “to display the copyrighted work publicly”
  14. Section 512 - Limitations on liability relating to material online

    17 U.S.C. § 512   Cited 574 times   186 Legal Analyses
    Denying the safe harbor if the service provider receives "a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity"
  15. Section 201.38 - Designation of agent to receive notification of claimed infringement

    37 C.F.R. § 201.38   Cited 4 times   14 Legal Analyses

    (a)General. This section prescribes the rules pursuant to which service providers may designate agents to receive notifications of claimed infringement pursuant to section 512 of title 17 of the United States Code. Any service provider seeking to comply with section 512(c)(2) of the statute must: (1) Designate an agent by making available through its service, including on its website in a location accessible to the public, and by providing to the Copyright Office, the service provider and designated