Discover published sets by community

University claimed copyright infringement by YouTube for hosting videos containing the university's copyrighted content without permission. The outcome reinforced online platforms' need to enforce copyright laws and prompted the development of more sophisticated content identification systems.

This case involved copyright infringement of church materials. The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, emphasizing the protection of religious texts and organizational materials under copyright law.

A landmark intellectual property case where the music-sharing service Napster was sued by several record companies for copyright infringement, leading to the service's shutdown and eventual bankruptcy. This case emphasized the importance of copyright law in the digital age.

Tiffany sued eBay for trademark infringement regarding the sale of counterfeit Tiffany products on eBay's platform. The court ruled in favor of eBay, but the case set an important precedent for the responsibilities of online marketplaces to prevent trademark infringement.

Essentially the same case as the 'Napster Case' card, the court's decision against Napster reaffirmed the protection of copyrighted audiovisual works.

The Supreme Court ruled that the first-sale doctrine applies to legally-acquired copyrighted works produced outside of the US, allowing for their resale within the US. This was a landmark case for copyright law and the global market.

This series of lawsuits involved Apple suing Samsung for infringing on its smartphone patents, including design and utility patents. The legal battles ended with both companies agreeing to a settlement, after a drawn-out process involving multiple international lawsuits.

In a case similar to 'Google Books Library Project' card, the Authors Guild claimed that Google was reproducing books without permission. The court concluded that Google Books constituted fair use because it was highly transformative and didn't threaten the market for the original works.

This high-profile case concerned Google's use of Java APIs in the Android operating system. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Google, stating that the use was fair use under copyright law, setting a major precedent for software development and intellectual property.

A case addressing the resale of digital music files, where Capitol Records sued ReDigi for allowing users to resell iTunes music files. The court ruled that digital files could not be resold without the copyright holder's permission.

The case dealt with the issue of Internet Service Providers' liability for copyright infringement by their users. Cox Communications was found liable for not taking proper action against repeat infringers. This case clarified the responsibilities of ISPs under the DMCA.

A copyright infringement case focused on thumbnail images in search results. The court sided with Amazon and Google, citing fair use and lack of substantial market harm caused by the thumbnails.

A legal battle where authors and publishers sued Google for its project scanning books and making excerpts available online without permission. The case resulted in a settlement that allowed Google to continue its project under certain conditions.

This case was a significant moment in the fight against illegal file-sharing. The Supreme Court held that Grokster was liable for promoting illegal copyright infringement by its users.

A case examining fair use in the context of a takedown notice on YouTube. The outcome of this case affirmed that copyright holders must consider fair use before issuing takedown notices under the DMCA.

Viacom sued YouTube over alleged unauthorized content. The court ruled that YouTube was protected by the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA, as long as they promptly removed infringing content when notified.

This case involved a company (Righthaven) that was formed to prosecute copyright infringements online. The court dismissed the case, holding that Righthaven didn't hold sufficient interest in the copyrighted works to prosecute. The case spotlighted copyright trolling.

The dispute involved the trademark of 'Dota' between Blizzard and Valve, in which Valve sought to register it for its own use. The conflict was settled with Valve gaining commercial rights of the name, while Blizzard could use it non-commercially for its community.

In this case, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of patent infringement and whether or not a permanent injunction should automatically be issued against the infringer. The Court decided that courts should apply the traditional four-factor test to determine if an injunction is warranted.