Glynn claims that he is joint owner of the copyright to RUST under the Copyright Act and seeks a declaratory judgment under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Facepunch argues that Glynn has pled that claim with insufficient particularity. Facepunch also argues that the first contract between Facepunch and Glynn shows that Facepunch did not intend for Glynn to have any ownership interest in RUST. Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the court may “declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration.” Federal district courts are well-situated to hear disputes where a plaintiff seeks a declaration of copyright ownership pursuant to the Copyright Act. Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines a “joint …show more content…
Where parties have meaningfully collaborated on a work, “it is hard to imagine” that such work is “unaccompanied by the requisite intent.” Facepunch argues that it never intended to enter into joint ownership with Glynn. Both sides agree, however, that Glynn was an independent contractor for Facepunch and never signed any documents altering his copyright interest in any game he produced. Moreover, Glynn alleges that he wrote roughly 75% of RUST’s code, making him the dominant author. Glynn’s complaint sufficiently alleges that he performed a substantial amount of work on RUST and worked closely with other collaborators at Facepunch to create a finished product. Glynn’s contract with Facepunch establishes his monthly stipend, but does not affect his rights as an independent contractor to joint authorship in his work and derivative works. The court will not dismiss Glynn’s claim for declaratory judgment. Glynn argues that Facepunch interfered with his contract or economic advantage by abandoning RUST and replacing it with Facepunch’s failed experimental game. Glynn’s allegations for tortious interference relate to entirely to RUST and have nothing to do with the contract between Facepunch and Glynn. As a result, dismissal of Glynn’s interference claim as it relates to Glynn’s
I agree with court’s decision to dismiss Ms. Marder’s grievance against Paramount. Ms. Marder made a contract with Paramount and sold away the rights to her story. The contract between Ms.Marder and Paramount was legal and binding; the courts could not favor her. Paramount became the legal own of Ms. Marder’s story at the time of its purchase; the price they paid for her story, although quite small, was the amount she had agreed to.
Part I: Overview of Case (who is involved and what they are arguing, as well as all possible theories, defenses, and torts involved)
Finally, Sucklal argues that she was denied an adequate opportunity to be heard with respect to the motions hearings on September 26, 2013, and September 5, 2014. At the outset we note that an appellant has a responsibility to cite us to “the facts material to a determination of the questions presented.” Md. Rule 8-504(a)(4). Indeed, “we cannot be expected to delve through the record to unearth factual support favorable to the appellant.” Rollins v. Capital Plaza Assoc., L.P., 181 Md. App. 188, 201 (2008). In her brief, Sucklal makes bald assertions that she was denied due process, but fails to articulate the specific circumstances that give rise to such claims. The deficiencies in the arguments notwithstanding, after a through review
Charles and Joann Yankitis (hereinafter “Yankitis”), the Bakers, LIA and the individual board members of LIA would enter into a mutual release regarding any and all claims relating to the above referenced lawsuit, whether known or unknown, arising out of any act or occurrence prior to the date of the settlement agreement. The parties would enter an order dismissing Macomb County Circuit Court Case No. 15-159-CH with prejudice and without attorney’s fees or costs to any of the parties.
Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Robert Higgins and Teresa Higgins (the “Higginses”) and Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Richard Hargrove and Kathleen Hargrove (the “Hargroves”), by their respective undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.
Keegan, T. (2012). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Kirtsaeng. New York Law School Law Review,
Statement of Issues: American Golf Corp is requesting a review of the Fulton Superior Court (Georgia), which has favored Jeffrey and Haley Manley for the actual damages and approved the golf course operator’s motion for a directed verdict for punitive damages for the Manley’s for the negligence action at the golf course. They are suing the company of the golf course and seeking punitive damages. The court decided that American Golf Corp is responsible for punitive damages but has allowed the claims for actual damages to go to trial. In Case No. A96A0615, American Golf Corp appeals from a jury verdict of $140,000 for Jeffrey Manley and $10,000 for his wife, and in case No. A96A0616, plaintiffs cross-appeal from the trial court’s denial of their motion for a pre-judgement interest.
I hope all is well. I have been doing some research about our case with Ann Downer v. Meg Murry. In this case, Ann Downer and Scholastic are claiming copyright infringement of “Hatching Magic” against Meg Murry’s and her book “Magic Hatching”. I feel we have a strong case in representing the defendant Meg Murry in getting summary judgment. Primary authority covering this case would be 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-1101. In order to establish infringement Ms. Downer must demonstrate:
Compl. ¶ 32-34; 39-40. Drake is seeking to recover for the damage the profile created to not only to her reputation, but also her artistic work of short animated films. Drake Dep. 4:3-7. Drake feels that her artistic work is less valuable now due to the creation of the fake profile. Id. at 3:28. Schultz denies that Drake’s work lost any value from the profile creation and no damages are available. Answer. ¶ 44. Schultz is seeking summary judgment in his favor. Def.’s Mot. Summ.
In the Case study assignment I am going to talk about the case BENAY v. WARNER BROS ENTERTAINMENT INC. this case deals with the two brothers Aaron and Matthew Benay suing Warner Brothers Entertainment, Inc., Radar Pictures Inc, Bedford Falls Productions Inc, Edward Zwick, Marshall Herskovitz, and John Logan over the coping of the screenplay The Last Samurai. The brothers wrote a screenplay in the late 1990’s and had it copyrighted in 2001. The screenplay was then “pitched” by phone to the president of the company that produced the film The last Samurai, which is also the same name of the screenplay by the Benays, Bedford Falls in 2000. It was informed to the Benays’ agent that Bedford Falls, “had decided to ‘pass’ becasuse it already had a similar project in development. (Benay, pg. 1)” This led to the Benays claiming that important
The brothers consulted with Marshall Perlin, a lawyer who had worked on their parent’s case in the last few weeks prior to their execution. Perlin assured them that they had a strong copyright infringement case and also led them to believe that they could file the case while remaining anonymous. Following Perlin’s guidance, they decided to pursue a lawsuit against Nizer. For the first time, they would have a public
When deciding a copyright case, the courts traditionally evaluate: "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes" (for example, was the original
Copyright laws were established to provide authors with rights over their creations and to prevent unauthorized use and distribution of these creations by others. Although the law grants ownership to one party, usually the author of the work, there is a doctrine for granting ownership of “work-made-for-hire” to educational institutions (Crews, 2006). This doctrine supports that if the employee developed the work under the parameters of their scope of employment or through the use of resources provided by the employer, then the employer owns the rights to the work (Crews, 2006). In an effort to clarify the mandates of copyright law and improve understanding of intellectual property ownership, educational institutions have developed their own policies addressing intellectual property ownership. The policies vary by institution, but share the same purpose of providing guidelines and conditions for ownership of creations by the educational institution’s faculty.
The enduring fascination for people is that they want law to be flexible in the matter of copyright. This was clearly expressed by Ed Mayo, Chief Executive of Consumer Focus quoting "UK copyright law is the oldest, but also the most out of date. Before addressing the question it’s important to look at the history and definition of UK Copyright law. It has grown from this beginning to form the main legal basis for the international publishing industry, which contributes so much to literature, learning and culture not only in the UK but it has crossed different nation’s borders.
First before summarizing the case lets be understand what Luna is? Luna was a small company that had been owned and operated by the Dumart family for almost 60 years, In the 1980s, was sold the firm’s stock to a larger stationery company and then DGG acquired that stationery company as a vehicle for manufacturing and marketing copy and printer paper. So now I summarized the case as written.