510 U.S. 517 (1994) Cited 2,835 times 30 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the Copyright Act fee-shifting statute, 17 U.S.C. § 505, defendants and plaintiffs are to be treated the same, contrary to the Court's interpretation of § 1988
Holding that full payment was not a condition precedent when the licensee received the copyrighted drawings after tendering only half the required payment
Holding that, while courts may invalidate underlying copyrights, the Copyright Act gives federal courts no authority to cancel copyright registrations with the U.S. Copyright Office
664 F. Supp. 2d 332 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) Cited 31 times 1 Legal Analyses
In Weinstein, the plaintiff brought a breach of contract action and argued that an email exchange between it and the defendant copyright co-owner codified a prior oral agreement to transfer exclusive distribution rights and satisfied § 204(a).
Noting that an "injunction is a remedy and not a separate cause of action," and that "the fact that plaintiffs have pleaded their request for injunctive relief as a separate claim rather than as part of the prayer for relief in no way disentitles them to seek injunctive relief"