Copyright Infringement under cybercrime law.pptx

cybercrimes

1. Copyright Infringement Sample cases

2. Group 1 - Naruto Vs Slater Group 2- Bratz vs Barbie Group 3- Sketchers vs Crocs Group 4- Apple vs Google Group 5- Apple vs Samsung Group 6-ABS-CBN vs Willing Willie Group 7-TVJ vs Tape Incorporated

3. Naruto vs Slater In 2011, Naruto, a curious macaque monkey in Indonesia picked up nature photographer David Slater’s camera and took one of the most famous selfies in recent years. David Slater’s copyright infringement claim against those who had copied or downloaded the photo from his online posts was rejected, the court ruling that Mr. Slater did indeed own the camera, but not the photo. A counter claim filed in 2015 on behalf of Naruto the macaque sought to claim damages against Mr. Slater and others, and secure the intellectual property rights under Naruto’s name as the author of a work of art. The poignant argument in the case is whether it can be said that Naruto knew what he was doing. We know what we think – what about you? If being at the forefront of developments in technology and the intellectual asset protection of art and music sounds like the career you want, check out the online  Master of Laws (LLM) in Legal Practice  from The University of Law.

4. In 2007, the high-end signature hand-bag and luggage maker, Louis Vuitton Malletier, lost an outrageous copyright infringement case against comedy fashion company Haute Diggity Dog. In 2007, the high-end signature hand-bag and luggage maker, Louis Vuitton Malletier, lost an outrageous copyright infringement case against comedy fashion company Haute Diggity Dog. The comedy designers had released a line of parody products named Chewy Vuitton, to go along with other memorable knock-offs such as Chewnel No.5 and Sniffany & Co. Remarkably, the U.S Court of Appeals ruled against the claim of copyright breach, stating that because of the element of parody, the products were adequately differentiated and unique, thereby negating any copyright or trademark infringement.

5. Barbie vs bratz Mattel Inc., creators of the Barbie doll, won a huge case against rival toy doll maker, MGA Entertainment Inc. back in 2008. MGA claimed that Mattel had copied their latest range of Bratz dolls in order to steal back MGA’s dominant market share. The designs were simply too similar, featuring disproportionately large heads and slim bodies. However, lawyers working on Mattel’s behalf managed to turn the case around, proving that an ex-Mattel designer who had subsequently worked on the design team for MGA had used designs that he had created while employed at Mattel. In fact, those doll designs were still the legal property of Mattel. MGA was ordered to pay damages to the tune of $100,000,000 and temporarily remove their dolls from shelves. It just goes to show, instigating an intellectual property claim can end up being an expensive miscalculation.

6. Bratz vs Barbie Carter Bryant, the creator of Bratz, was previously employed by Mattel, the manufacturer of Barbie. During his time working at Barbie, he came up with the idea for Bratz, which he later sold to one of Mattel's biggest competitors, MGA Entertainment. The new doll franchise debuted in 2001 and quickly became the plastic bombshell's biggest competitor. Mattel sued both Bryant and MGA in 2008, claiming that Bryant's idea was stolen intellectual property. MGA countersued, resulting in the two doll manufacturers locking horns. MGA accused Mattel of corporate espionage by having its employees trained in spying on its competitors and resorting to clandestine underhanded tactics, such as having its employees print fake business cards and use them to enter the private showrooms of its competitor. The lawsuit concluded in 2013 with a verdict in favor of MGA and an award of $170 million in damages, but Mattel would file an appeal to overturn the verdict, causing both parties to walk away empty-handed.

7. Apple vs Microsoft There was once a time when the two tech giants squared off in court. Apple filed a lawsuit against Microsoft in 1988, shortly after the release of  Windows 2.0 , a significant upgrade to the original version. At the time, Apple accused Microsoft of plagiarizing the graphical user interface found on the Macintosh system without permission or a license. This is where the case becomes interesting, as Apple did in fact grant Microsoft permission to use Macintosh's design elements in Windows. The mystery surrounding this part is that, for some reason, Apple's legal department did not receive the memo, after the release of Windows 2.0, Apple was so taken aback by the suddenness of the legal proceedings that it skipped sending any sort of preemptive warning or threat. As a result of this misunderstanding, the court ruled in favor of Microsoft in 1989, and although Apple attempted to appeal the decision multiple times, all of its efforts were unsuccessful.

8. 0. Apple vs Google In 2010, as smartphones became increasingly important in our daily lives, Apple and Samsung went to court over Samsung's alleged violations of Apple's patents on several of its smartphone designs. Apple's main competitor was not Samsung per se, but rather the Android operating system developed by Google and used by Samsung and other manufacturers. Partially because of a "Mobile Application Distribution Agreement," Google's legal team had to intervene to help Samsung. Concurrently, Motorola filed one of the most publicized lawsuits in technology history, accusing Apple of intellectual property infringement. Motorola claimed that Apple violated their patents on 3G phone technology and other aspects of smartphone design, while Apple fired back by claiming that Motorola had infringed on their patents on a number of features. The court was so frustrated by the fight that the judges threw out the case three times in 2012, on the grounds that neither party had enough implicated evidence and were told to settle out of court. 2012 was the year that Google bought Motorola. Although Apple has never directly attacked Google, they appear to focus on third-party companies that sell Google's software products; nonetheless, Google appears to be adamant in defending its popular mobile software.