Imagine -- "Imagine" copyright suits are not over
A news article reported that the judge in the state court suit has (1) denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and (2) required that the defendant answer the complaint. The ruling is here.
I thought that this whole thing was essentially over when the federal judge denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
Actually, because the US Constitution gives Congress jurisdiction over copyrights and interstate commerce, I question the authority of a state court to take any kind of action to enforce a copyright, including any action that applies just to a state.
The name "supreme court" here is a misnomer -- this state court is a trial court of original jurisdiction.
Yoko Ono & sons were plaintiffs in the federal suit but not the state suit -- here the plaintiffs are just Capitol Records and EMI records. I don't know if the federal court decision has been appealed -- one probably needs a PACER account to find out.
Also, I wonder why the article did not mention the federal court suit. Also, the state court ruling did not mention the federal court suit. The new Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires all federal courts to allow citation of unpublished opinions (I presume that the final opinion of the federal case is unpublished), but I don't know the citation rules of the NY state courts.
Also, the title of the news article, "Sampling a song can be fair use, rules US court," is wrong -- it is a state court, not a US court.
There once was a lady named Yoko,
who had a mind that was quite loco.
When she tried to sue,
she later did rue,
'cause the lawyers she faced were pro bono.
Imagine there are no copyrights,
it isn't hard to do.
Nothing to cause court fights,
no reason for to sue.
Imagine all the people,
staying out of court --
Thanks to Uncommon Descent for the tip.
Labels: Yoko Ono lawsuit (new #1)