Connect with us

World News

US Supreme Court rules that errors in law can excuse inaccuracies in copyright registration – JURIST

Published

on

The US Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 opinion Thursday that errors of law, and not just errors of fact, could protect parties from losing their copyright on the grounds of inaccurate registration. Unicolors, a fabric design company, sued fashion giant Hennes & Mauritz (H&M) for copyright infringement in 2020. Although the jury found in favor of Unicolors, H&M argued at trial that copyright registration Unicolors copyright was inaccurate and therefore invalid. H&M claimed that while a single registration could cover multiple works only if they were “included in the same unit of publication”, Unicolors’ registration covered 31 unpublished designs as a single unit. Some were sold exclusively to certain customers, while others were sold to the public. The district court rejected H&M’s argument under §411(b) of the Copyright Act, which states: “A registration certificate meets the requirements of this section and section 412, regardless of whether the certificate contains inaccurate information, unless . . . the inaccurate information was included in the copyright application knowing that it was inaccurate.” However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that this safeguard was only available against inaccuracies arising from errors of fact and not errors of law. certiorari, the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Breyer, found that the distinction did not change the applicability of the “safe harbor” provision of §411. The court concluded that the statute merely refers to “knowledge” and that there was no reason to suppose that it did not apply to lack of legal knowledge. Other provisions of the Copyright Act showed that “knowledge” encompassed legal knowledge, as the provisions required registrants to know legal concepts. Since Unicolors was under a “good faith misunderstanding” of the statutory requirement, it did not file its application with the “knowledge that it was inaccurate.” ” found that inadvertent errors in registration did not invalidate copyrights. The court also referred to reports from the legislature to determine that §411(b) was intended to “close loopholes” that could be “exploited” to block valid copyrights. The court rejected H&M’s attempt to apply the dictum “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, stating that it “normally applied” to crucial elements of the law in criminal cases and not to civil cases involving ancillary legal requirements. had changed its arguments to address a “novel issue that no court has addressed until today.” The justices disagreed with the majority that Unicolors’ new arguments were “fairly included” in the original question, and therefore , considered that the ruling violated the appellate review process.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

World News

US Supreme Court Adds Controversial Election Case to October 2022 Docket – JURIST

Published

on

The US Supreme Court announced Thursday that it will hear a controversial election case dealing with an emerging legal theory based on the election clause of the US Constitution. The theory claims that, under the election clause, State legislatures have unlimited power to determine electoral policy and implementation, and that state courts or state constitutions cannot control that power. map, which was previously struck down by state courts and replaced with a court-ordered map to be used for the 2022 midterm elections. The court found that the original map violated the clause in the state constitution that protects the fairness of the election by giving Republicans an unfair advantage. The court previously declined to hear the emergency case, but Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas signaled a willingness to consider the new legal theory in their dissent. Judge Alito, writing in the dissent, said: Both sides make serious arguments, but based on the report we have received, my opinion is that the petitioners’ argument is stronger. The question being presented is one of federal and not state law because the state legislature, in enacting rules for congressional elections, is acting pursuant to a constitutional mandate under the Electoral Clause. Carolyn Shapiro, a law professor and founder and co-director of the Chicago-Kent College of the US Supreme Court Law Institute, took issue with the Justice’s interpretation, saying that “legislatures are created by constitutions. Their powers are defined by the constitutions. How those powers interact with other branches of state government is defined by state constitutions. The limitations of those powers are defined by state constitutions.”

Continue Reading

World News

Trump Affiliated Businessman Sentenced to 20 Months in Prison for Political Donation Crimes – JURIST

Published

on

The Justice Department said Wednesday that Lev Parnas, a businessman involved in the Trump-Ukraine affair, was sentenced to 20 months in prison on multiple counts related to soliciting donations from a foreign national. Parnas was convicted on charges of “conspiring to make political contributions of a foreign national in conjunction with soliciting and aiding and abetting the making thereof, conspiracy to make fictitious donations, participation in a wire fraud conspiracy, and making false statements and falsifying records. Parnas will also pay more than $2 million in restitution. The charges of making political contributions by a foreign national stem from events that occurred in March 2018. Parnas and other associates wanted to launch a business to obtain retail marijuana licenses in the US. The group turned over hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions before the 2018 election to curry favor with anyone who could help Parnas and his associates obtain these licenses. Parnas and an associate made a donation of $325,000 and falsely claimed that the donation was from Global Power Producers (GEP). Parnas also lied about the fact that he was receiving bogus donations and the contributions were not his own money. The fraud guarantee charges are from between 2012 and 2019. Parnas planned to defraud several people by convincing them to invest in his company. He said the contributions would be used solely for his business. Instead, the payments were withdrawn in cash, placed in personal bank accounts, and used for personal expenses. Damian Williams, US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, stated: “Parnas also defrauded the American public by pumping Russian money into US elections and lying about the origin of funds for political contributions. My office will continue to aggressively prosecute those who put their personal and financial benefit above their country and their investors.” The office’s Public Corruption Unit is handling the Parnas case.

Continue Reading

World News

Indonesian parliament passes law to create more provinces in Papua amid fears of government crackdown – JURIST

Published

on

The Indonesian People’s Representative Council on Thursday approved legislation to establish three new provinces in the Papua region. The decision was made during the 26th plenary session when all members unanimously agreed to pass three bills that established the new provinces. Currently, the easternmost region of Indonesia is divided into two regions, Papua and West Papua. However, it will now be divided into five provinces. The three new provinces have been named, South Papua Province with Merauke as its capital, Central Papua Province with Nabire as its capital, and Papua Mountains Province with Jaya wijaya as its capital. Ahmad Doli Kurnia Tandjung, Chairperson of the Council Commission, stated that: The purpose of partitioning Papua is to speed up equitable development, speed up the improvement of public services, speed up community welfare and uplift the dignity of the indigenous people of Papua. Papua. Taking into account political, administrative and legal aspects, socio-cultural unity, human resource preparation, basic infrastructure, economic capacity, future developments and aspirations of the Papuan people. Veronica Koman of Amnesty International Australia expressed concern about how the legislation would affect Papuans. She said that by “cutting and dividing Papua into smaller administrative units, [the Indonesian government] hopes to divide and conquer Papuan identity and resistance.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022