Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw
Bladewire - the point of TMing the watermark is so you don't have to prove who uploaded the content. There's no free pass for "anonymous" uploaders. If the stripped content is sitting on their servers and they have notice (in the Ninth Circuit) it can lead to a finding of contributory TM infringement...
Here's what I wrote about it 3 years ago...
Piracy and Trademark Law: A Way Stop to Content Theft - AdultBizLaw
And here's a quote from a legal treaty on TM infringement...
“Liability for trademark infringement and unfair competition may be extended beyond those who actually sell goods with the infringing mark, to include those contributory infringers who knowingly cooperate in illegal and tortious activity.” J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy On Trademark and Unfair Competition (2002) §§ 25:17, 18, referencing Warner & Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 265 U.S. 526 (1924) (applying common law concept of contributory infringement).
And here's the Ninth Circuit case that extend liability to the hosting companies...
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...2/10-15909.pdf |
I read your full article, and the full 17 pages of the final opinion by Judge Gould.
I particularly like this part of his judgement:
Page 9
[6] We have never held that an express finding of intent is
necessary to support liability for contributory copyright
infringement. To the contrary, we have held that “intent may
be imputed”
as a result of “a service provider’s knowing failure
to prevent infringing actions.” Amazon.com, 508 F.3d at
1172. The district court was not required to instruct the jury,
as Appellants suggest, to make a separate finding that Appellants’
knowing action evinced intent to contribute to copyright
infringement. See A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, 239 F.3d
1004, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001)
(“Contributory liability requires
that the secondary infringer ‘know or have reason to know’ of
direct infringement.”).
and this
[7] Material contribution turns on whether the activity in
question “substantially assists” direct infringement. Amazon.com,
487 F.3d at 729.
There is no question that providing
direct infringers with server space satisfies that standard. In
Visa, 494 F.3d at 799-800, we held as a matter of law that
defendants did not materially contribute to infringement
because “[t]hey d[id] not operate the servers on which [the
infringing images] reside[d].”
The opposite is true here.
Akanoc’s servers are “an essential step in the infringement
process.”
I like your AdultBizLaw site too, a lot of information there
