About The CLJ       About the Authors       Endorsements       Subscription Information       Contact Us       Log In  

The Copyright Law Journal brings you in-depth analysis of recent important cases in copyright law. In each issue, several cases are discussed, analyzed, and placed into perspective with decisions by other courts. The Copyright Law Journal was founded, and solely written, by Neil Boorstyn from 1984 through the Mar-April 2016 issue. Neil, who passed away on March 1, 2016, was Of Counsel to current publisher of The Copyright Law Journal, Owen, Wickersham & Erickson, P.C.. Neil was one of the country's leading copyright and computer law experts. Under the new authorship of Linda Joy Kattwinkel, Neil's student, mentee and colleague, The Copyright Law Journal continues to provide the valuable and unique perspective of a seasoned copyright practitioner. Read a tribute to Neil here.

Sample case and analysis
We invite you to read a sample case from The Copyright Law Journal, containing summary, facts, and extensive comments and practice tips. View a sample case

In the latest issue of The Copyright Law Journal:

LEONARD V. STEMTECH INTERNATIONAL, INC.: The Third Circuit held that in calculating actual damages, the fair market value of infringement may be reached by applying multipliers to a benchmark license fee, when the multipliers reflect market harms resulting from the infringement
FRIEDMAN V. LIVE NATION MERCHANDISE, INC.: The Ninth Circuit held that, under the separate infringers rule, a plaintiff seeking separate damages awards on the basis of downstream infringement must join the alleged downstream infringers as defendants in the action
DIRECT TECHNOLOGIES, LLC V. ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC.: The Ninth Circuit clarified the fact-intensive considerations for determining functionality, originality, and joint authorship of product designs


Most jurisdictions interpret the concept of “willfulness” as requiring knowledge that particular conduct constitutes infringement, rather than intentionally engaging in the act of copying. For these purposes, acting in “reckless disregard” for, or “willful blindness” to, the copyright owner’s rights constitutes willfulness.
When copyright holder information does not explicitly correspond to particular elements included in a collective work, and thus causes an ambiguity as to what the copyright notice covers, there may not be DMCA liability for removal or alteration of CMI, or for including false CMI.
In the European Union and many other countries, product designs are recognized as artistically protectable works, without a conceptually separate requirement. They can be protected as registered and unregistered designs, with terms of protection up to 25 years.

To read this and other issues, subscribe today


Subscribe today

  Already subscribed?
  Log in for the latest issue:

  User ID:
Need Log In help?

Privacy Policy    

The Copyright Law Journal :
Providing helpful guidance and practice tips since 1984