Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Copyright – Chloe > Cases > Flashcards

Cases Flashcards

1
Q

Feist

A

Originality=independent creation + modest amount of creativity (white pages)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Alfred Bell

A

Originality doesn’t require intent to be original

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Bleistein

A

Aesthetic neutrality–doesn’t have to be non-commercial or “art” to be protected.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Mannion v Coors

A

Baseball star billboard: photos can be original in timing, rendition, and composition (creation of subject)
Tryable question of fact on aesthetic appeal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Eldred

A

Idea/expression dichotomy necessary to reconcile copyright with the first amendment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Alexander v. Haley

A

Roots case: some elements are indispensable or standard in a given topic (scenes a faire)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Bill Diodata v. Kate Spade

A

women’s shoes sitting on toilet common trope

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Baker v. Selden

A

Can copyright a book about process, but can’t copyright the process itself (accounting system)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Fairey v. AP

A

Hope poster: question about whether pose was copyrightable or scenes a faire in US political iconography. Can’t copyright style

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

LaChappelle v Rihanna

A

Whether what’s common is S+M scenes a faire or infringement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Hoehling

A

Can’t copyright historical facts, but copyright estoppel if I’ve claimed something is fact

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Lotus v Boreland

A

Menu hierarchy is “method of operation” under 102(b), like buttons on a VCR (CA1)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Oracle v Google

A

102(b) just restates the idea/expression distinction; APIs protectable. Original and creative declaring codes and structure, sequence, and organization (SSOs) of Oracle’s 37 Java API packages are © protected, not just method of operation

Big circuit split. More plaintiff-friendly than Altai (but uses that test)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Anderson

A

Characters protectable if well-delineated (Rocky)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

DC Comics v Towle

A

Batmobile protectable: 1) physical and conceptual qualities, 2) sufficiently delineated, 3) especially distinctive/unique elements of expression

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Barnhard

A

Mannequins: test for conceptual separability whether form dictated by function

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Keiselstein Cord

A

Belt buckles: test for conceptual separability which aspect is primary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Newman Barnhard dissent

A

Test for conceptual separability temporal displacement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Brandir

A

Bike rack–not conceptually separable because creator not “uninhibited by functional considerations” (intent of creator test)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Pivot Point

A

“Hungry look” mannequins protectable because creator had a lot of artistic discretion (intent of creator test)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Star Athletica

A

Conceptual separability if 1) can be perceived as art separate from the useful article and 2) would qualify as a protectable work on its own (doesn’t have to be equally useful or fully functioning)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Shine v Childs

A

Freedom Tower case: ordinary observer “total concept and feel” test

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Liebskind

A

Zigzagging Jewish museum in Berlin resembles Australian museum. Never litigated, but public shaming

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Lindsay v RMST

A

Filmmaker still author even though he didn’t handle cameras–creative control and veto decision-making

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Thomson v Larson

A

Larson didn’t intend dramaturg to be considered join author (though she got paid for copyrightable contribution)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Aalmuhammed v Lee

A

consultant on Malcolm X movie made copyrightable contribution but was not an “author” – control, objective manifestation of shared intent, audience appeal turns on both contributions and you can’t tell the share

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Cybersound

A

One joint author can’t grant an exclusive license because that’s limiting the rights of other joint authors (CA9)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

CCNV v Reid (SC)

A

12 factors on whether someone is an employee for purposes of work for hire:

  1. Hiring party’s right to control
  2. Skill required
  3. Source of tools
  4. Location of labor
  5. Duration of relationship
  6. Right to assign additional projects
  7. Control over hours
  8. Method of payment
  9. Right to hire assistants
  10. Business of hiring party
  11. Employee benefits
  12. Tax treatment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Avtec (CA4)

A

Scope of employment test: kind of work employed to perform, authorized space and time, at least in part to serve employer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

King

A

speech case: for purposes of mandator notice, publication only if tangible copies distributed to public or displayed in a way that invites unrestricted copying

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Golan

A

URAA taking works out of the public domain not beyond Congress’s power

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Eldred

A

Copyright Term Extension Act constitutional

33
Q

Fred Fisher v Wittmark

A

Expectancy in renewal right assignable, but only effective if author survives

34
Q

NYT v Tasini

A

Articles from print publications collected on Lexis not shielded by 201(c) because reproduced without original content

35
Q

Cablevision

A

Transitory duration not enough

36
Q

Bridgeport Music

A

De minimis defense not available for sampling sound recordings

37
Q

Altai (CA2)

A

Abstraction/filtration/comparison test, often used for software, favors developers (filters out efficiency, external factors, public domain)

38
Q

Boisson

A

More discerning ordinary observer test (same aesthetic appeal)

39
Q

Ideal Toy Corp

A

“Apparent appropriation” SS standard

40
Q

Kroft

A

“Total concept and feel” SS standard (McDonaldLand)

41
Q

Swirsky

A

CA9 extrinsic/intrinsic test: triable issue of extrinsic similarity of Mariah Carey song

42
Q

Rogers v Koons

A

sculpture of dog photo similarity (composition, expressions)

43
Q

Harney

A

kidnapping photo in movie only similar in faces/pose. If not scenes a faire, minimal originality

44
Q

Leibovitz

A

even though based on Venus painting, yes substantial similarity with Demi Moore photo (position, composition) BUT fair use

45
Q

Three Boys Music

A

extrinsic-intrinsic test, subconscious copying, unique combination of elements
can show access by wide dissemination

46
Q

Steinberg v Columbia Pictures

A

Apparent appropriation of New Yorker cartoon: way blocks drawn, made-up elements

47
Q

Rentmeester

A

Extrinsic-intrinsic test, no substantial similarity (jumpman)

48
Q

Castle Rock

A

Seinfeld Aptitude Test infringing, but uses 106(1) instead of (2)

49
Q

Lee v ART

A

Mounting photos on tiles: CA9 thinks it’s derivative, CA7 disagrees

50
Q

MicroStar v FormGen

A

selling CD of user-generated levels is derivative work; MAP file is concrete/permanent like sheet music, infringes story even w/o containing the actual art

51
Q

Quality King

A

First sale doctrine applies to roundtrip importation (manufactured in US)

52
Q

Kirtsaeng

A

First sale doctrine applies to things lawfully manufactured abroad

53
Q

Hotaling v LDS

A

library adding work to public collection is distribution

54
Q

Cablevision

A

arroyo server –> set-top box not public performance because unique copy for each subscriber

55
Q

Aereo

A

individual tiny antenna from broadcast to subscribers looks like cable, so public performance

56
Q

Redhorn

A

transmitting VHS to back room public performance: facility open to public, involves transmission

57
Q

Perfect10

A

inline linking of thumbnails not the same as hosting images themselves. Thumbnails transformative (entertainment to info retrieval)

58
Q

Redigi

A

controversial tension between distribution and first sale: allowed streamers who didn’t want downloads to sell them. Doesn’t work under 109(a)

59
Q

Betamax

A

Sony not liable for contributory infringement for selling VCRs: capable of substantial noninfringing uses, and time-shifting programs is fair use

60
Q

Harper and Row

A

Nation scooped Ford autobio: “heart of the work” even though 300-400 words, about Nixon pardon (fair use analysis)

61
Q

Campbell

A

“Big Hairy Woman” case: created “transformative” element as being at heart of fair use

62
Q

Napster

A

“commercial” use if “repeated and exploitative copying to save the expense of purchase” (expansive)

Napster is CoSNU so lack constructive knowledge, BUT:

  1. operators can determine whether copies are legal, so have actual knowledge for contrib. liability
  2. for the same reason, supervisory control for vicarious liability
63
Q

Blanch v Koons

A

Used fashion photos to satirize

64
Q

Gaylord

A

stamp of Korean War memorial not transformative: same purpose

65
Q

Cariou

A

Rasta photos mostly transformative because “new expression, meaning, or message” – doesn’t have to comment

66
Q

Authors Guild v Google

A

Google Books snippets socially beneficial, so transformative (CA9, CA2)

67
Q

Martin v Indianapolis

A

destruction of large outdoor steel structure no damages under VARA b/c no recognized stature

68
Q

Dastar

A

Made Lanham Act less helpful for moral rights: no false designation of origin of marketed public domain TV show because just designated origin of tangible videos, not ideas

69
Q

Grokster

A

Created liability for inducement: “clear expression or other affirmative steps to foster infringement”

Advertising illegal uses, targeting customers known to engage in illegal uses, failure to adopt reducing tech (insufficient), commercial sense depends on infringement (insufficient)

70
Q

Cherry Auction

A

Material contribution satisfied by site and facilities for known infringement
Financial interest satisfied by infringement “enhancing attractiveness” of defendant’s venue

71
Q

Aimster

A

Operators couldn’t see contents b/c encrypted but tutorials showing how to share music files
willful blindness=knowledge (but maybe not enough for VL)
failed to establish legitimate uses
material contribution: active encouragement through tutorials

72
Q

Viacom v Youtube

A

Creates ContentID

73
Q

Corley

A

program that bypasses system preventing burning CDs violates 1201(a)(2). Expansive interpretation of “trafficking,” lenient interpretation of “effectively controls access”

74
Q

Frank Music v MGM

A

when 10 scenes from 10 musicals in an infringing revue, should judge profits on how much his portion contributed

75
Q

Tenenbaum

A

Massive statutory damages okay

76
Q

Moran

A

“willful” = knowing you’re breaking copyright law

77
Q

Fantasy v Fogerty

A

Plaintiffs and defendants treated the same for the purposes of attorneys fees

78
Q

Salinger

A

eBay applies to preliminary injunctions for (c) (i.e., must show actual irreparable harm)

Copyright – Chloe (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions