21 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 260,142 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Goodyear Dunlop Tires Oper. v. Brown
564 U.S. 915 (2011) Cited 5,401 times 87 Legal Analyses
Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd.
545 U.S. 913 (2005) Cited 797 times 32 Legal Analyses
Holding that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable”
Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc.
464 U.S. 417 (1984) Cited 980 times 28 Legal Analyses
Holding identical copying of videotapes under unique circumstances of case “[did] not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use”
Mavrix Photo Inc. v. Brand Techs. Inc.
647 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 957 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the defendant expressly aimed the content of "celebrity-gossip.net" at California because the site had a specific focus on the California-centric entertainment industry
ALS Scan, Inc. v. Dig. Serv. Consultants, Inc.
293 F.3d 707 (4th Cir. 2002) Cited 892 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a Maryland court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a “passive” Internet service provider when that Internet service provider only enabled the tortfeasor “to create a website and send information over the Internet”
Shrader v. Biddinger
633 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2011) Cited 502 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that operating a website, on its own, does not "subject the owner or operator to personal jurisdiction" where the site is accessed
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.Com, Inc.
487 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 479 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that an online image search index was "highly transformative"
Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. Akanoc Solutions
658 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2011) Cited 148 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
Costar Group, Inc. v. Loopnet, Inc.
373 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2004) Cited 161 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding defendant ISP not liable for direct infringement for simply displaying user-posted real estate photos because defendant’s actions were "not truly ‘copying’ as understood by the [Coypright] Act" and defendant acted simply as a "conduit from or to would-be copiers"
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 71,368 times 127 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Section 1391 - Venue generally
28 U.S.C. § 1391 Cited 28,500 times 199 Legal Analyses
Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
Section 101 - Definitions
17 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 6,452 times 175 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the United States' adherence to provisions of the Berne Convention of 1886
Section 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
17 U.S.C. § 106 Cited 3,830 times 108 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”
Section 201 - Ownership of copyright
17 U.S.C. § 201 Cited 958 times 26 Legal Analyses
Providing that copyright in a work "vests initially in the author"

Perfect 10, Inc. v. IWEB Group, Inc. et al

21 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

Holding "the sales of petitioners' tires sporadically made in North Carolina through intermediaries" insufficient to support general jurisdiction

Holding that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright ... is liable”

Holding identical copying of videotapes under unique circumstances of case “[did] not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use”

Holding that the defendant expressly aimed the content of "celebrity-gossip.net" at California because the site had a specific focus on the California-centric entertainment industry

Holding that a Maryland court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a “passive” Internet service provider when that Internet service provider only enabled the tortfeasor “to create a website and send information over the Internet”

Holding that operating a website, on its own, does not "subject the owner or operator to personal jurisdiction" where the site is accessed

Holding that an online image search index was "highly transformative"

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

Holding defendant ISP not liable for direct infringement for simply displaying user-posted real estate photos because defendant’s actions were "not truly ‘copying’ as understood by the [Coypright] Act" and defendant acted simply as a "conduit from or to would-be copiers"

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

Recognizing the United States' adherence to provisions of the Berne Convention of 1886

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”

Providing that copyright in a work "vests initially in the author"