Show Less
Restricted access

Case Analyses for Intellectual Property Law and New Media


Steven L. Baron, Edward Lee Lamoureux and Claire Stewart

This text is a companion to the 2 nd edition of Intellectual Property Law And New Media: Free for a Fee. Moving the coverage of case analysis to this separate volume, enables the authors to focus their attention on important trial and legal procedures that apply extant law to, largely, new circumstances.
Readers can focus on history and concepts while reading the main text, allowing them to bring understandings derived there to bear on the cases found in this analytic text. The approach offers relief from information overload and allows time and space to «shift gears» between concepts and cases. To aid understanding and learning, the authors provide focused interpretations and analysis throughout.
The coverage allows these books to serve as an excellent resource for undergraduates studying interactive media, as well as being a primer for first year IP law students, a handbook for entrepreneurs, a guidebook for general lawyers to assist in referrals, and an interesting read for those simply curious about the field.
The books are supplemented by, a blog providing textual updates, online links to bibliographic materials, and extensive resource aggregation. Learning objectives for each chapter and a glossary of key terms are provided within the texts.
Show Summary Details
Restricted access

Chapter Two: Three Copyright Issues Cases


| 18 →


Three Copyright Issues Cases

Traditional Special Copyright Issues Cases with New Media Implications

Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Bros. Records Inc., 780 F. Supp. 182 (S.D.N.Y. 1991).

Grand Upright Music, Ltd v. Warner Bros. Records Inc. set a standard against sampling as fair use in the US popular music industry.

Singer-songwriter Gilbert O’Sullivan brought a copyright infringement action against rapper Biz Markie after Markie sampled portions of O’Sullivan’s hit song “Alone Again, Naturally”. The court ruled that sampling without permission and/or license constituted copyright infringement. However, that decision ruled that the sampling was infringement only if the amount and substantiality failed to gain fair use exemption because the sample “rose to the level of legally cognizable appropriation.” That standard stood until Bridgeport v. Dimension Films (2005) ruled that even de minimis samples infringe and must be licensed.

Computer Associates Int’l v. Altai, 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992).

While it is the case that aspects of computer software can be protected by copyright, features that were taken from the public domain cannot be so protected. ← 18 | 19 → Computer Associates Int’l v. Altai helped establish an important and oft-used test that determines whether software can be protected, and a major aspect of that test depends on analysis of the public domain.

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.

Do you have any questions? Contact us.

Or login to access all content.