21 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 263,882 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 5,492 times 88 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 803 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 984 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 975 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 900 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 518 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 484 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 153 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 72,489 times 129 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 28,884 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 6,523 times 177 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 3,872 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 965 times 27 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"