9 Recent Copyright Infringement Cases in 2024

Recent copyright infringement cases have spotlighted the ongoing battles over exclusive rights to creative and artistic expression. These cases often revolve around allegations of copyright violation, where individuals or companies are accused of using content without permission.

A copyright claim typically arises when someone believes their creative work, whether it be music, designs, or other forms of artistic expression, has been used or replicated without their consent.

Legal actions are then pursued to protect the exclusive rights of the original creators, who seek to defend their intellectual property against unauthorised use. However, these cases can become complex when determining whether the disputed work involves protected creative content or unprotected elements that are not eligible for copyright protection.

As copyright law continues to evolve, these cases play a key role in defining the boundaries of what constitutes a copyright violation and the rights of creators over their works. 

Recent Copyright Infringement Cases in 2024

A number of high-profile copyright infringement cases in 2024 have drawn attention to the continuous arguments surrounding the unpermitted usage of intellectual works.

These legal disputes, which range from disputes over AI-generated content to contests over music sampling, highlight how important it is to safeguard intellectual property in an increasingly digital society.

Delhi HC Fines Rs. 5 Lakh for Unauthorised Use of Louis Vuitton Image

Louis Vuitton Malletier filed a complaint, seeking damages and other relief, including a perpetual injunction against the defendants for utilising pictures and videos without authorisation. The Delhi High Court just rendered a decision in August 2024.

The primary concern, according to Justice Mini Pushkarna, was the defendants’ unauthorised use of the plaintiff’s copyrighted photos and advertising materials. As a result, the Court granted an injunction that barred the defendants from utilising any Louis Vuitton-owned promotional materials or copyrighted photos or images.

The plaintiff filed the lawsuit after learning, in January and November of 2022, that the defendants were utilising specific images from their website to sell products without permission.

Louis Vuitton argued that these photographs were specifically commissioned for advertising and marketing their products, making them the rightful copyright holders. Although the defendants had since removed the infringing content from their website, the plaintiff claimed entitlement to costs due to the defendants’ admission of unauthorised use.

The Court did not address the authenticity of the products sold by the defendants, focusing solely on the copyright infringement. The defendants were also ordered not to sell new products of the plaintiff without written permission. They were allowed to continue selling pre-owned goods, provided they clearly stated on their website that these were certified pre-owned items of Louis Vuitton.

Additionally, the Court directed the defendants to pay Rs. 5,00,000 directly to the plaintiff in France, as requested by Louis Vuitton.

Saregama Copyright Dispute

The Delhi High Court, in a case filed by Saregama India Ltd. against Emami Ltd. in 2024, issued an interim order requiring Emami to deposit Rs. 10 Lakhs with the Court Registry within two weeks.

The order, made under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was part of an interim arrangement, with the possibility of adjusting the amount after further hearings.

Saregama sought to restrain Emami from using the musical and literary works of the song “Udi Jab Jab Zulfein” in an advertisement for Emami Kesh King Anti Hairfall Shampoo without a proper license.

Saregama asserted ownership of the song’s rights, which were originally assigned by BR Films, the producer of the film Naya Daur, under an agreement dated October 17, 1955. These rights were confirmed and renewed over the years, with the Indian Performing Right Society (IPRS) certifying Saregama’s ownership in November 2023.

Saregama argued that while Emami initially approached them for a license, they later challenged Saregama’s ownership and used the song without authorisation, constituting copyright infringement.

The Court directed Emami to deposit Rs. 10 Lakhs as an interim measure and instructed Saregama to submit documents detailing their licensing charges for similar cases. Should the Court determine, after hearing from the parties, that the deposit amounts ought to be changed, it will take that into consideration.

Record Labels Sue AI Companies for Mass Copyright Infringement

On June 24, major record labels Sony Music, Universal Music Group, and Warner Records filed lawsuits against AI companies Suno and Udio, accusing them of mass copyright infringement.

The suits, filed in New York against Udio and in Massachusetts against Suno, claim the companies illegally copied music from the labels to train their AI systems, which generate music that competes with human artists’ work.

The lawsuits allege that Suno and Udio’s AI systems enable users to recreate elements of iconic songs, such as The Temptations’ “My Girl,” Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas Is You,” and James Brown’s “I Got You (I Feel Good).” The complaints further state that the AI systems can produce vocals nearly indistinguishable from famous musicians like Michael Jackson and Bruce Springsteen.

Suno’s CEO, Mikey Shulman, defended the technology, claiming it generates new content rather than replicating existing works. However, the record labels argue that Suno and Udio have been evasive about the material used to train their AI, suggesting it would reveal extensive copyright infringement.

The lawsuits seek up to $150,000 in damages per song, with Suno accused of copying 662 songs and Udio 1,670, marking the first major legal challenges against AI-generated music.

Bhaktivedanta Book Trust Copyright Infringement Case

In a recent decision pertaining to copyright infringement regarding the unapproved use of Srila Prabhupada’s literary works, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust India.

Order 13-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was invoked by the plaintiff to obtain a summary judgement against the defendant, who had unlawfully replicated Srila Prabhupada’s writings on their website.

Justice Anish Dayal, referring to Section 21 of the Copyright Act, 1957, clarified that copyright relinquishment must follow a legally recognised process. In this case, there was no evidence that Srila Prabhupada had formally relinquished his copyright, despite becoming a sanyasi in 1959. Therefore, the copyright remained intact.

The public charitable Bhaktivedanta Book Trust was founded with the purpose of publishing and disseminating the teachings of Srila Prabhupada.

The trust found that the defendant’s website, www.friendwithbooks.co, was violating their copyright during an anti-piracy sweep in December 2020. In February 2021, the Court ordered an ex parte ad interim injunction, which the defendant complied with by taking down the content that was infringing.

Concluding that the copyright had not been relinquished and that there were no further issues to adjudicate, the Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting summary judgment under Order 13-A of the CPC.

ModernaTX Inc v. Pfizer Inc

On April 12, a Massachusetts federal court temporarily halted Moderna’s patent lawsuit against Pfizer and BioNTech, which claims they copied Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine technology.

U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns ordered the stay to allow the U.S. Patent Office to review the validity of two of the three patents Moderna claims were infringed. Despite Moderna’s objections, the judge determined that the Patent Office’s findings would help streamline the lawsuit.

Despite being upset by the ruling, Moderna is nevertheless optimistic about the quality of its patents. The case, which was filed in 2022, claims that Pfizer and BioNTech violated Moderna’s messenger-RNA technology, which is essential to the development of the COVID-19 vaccine. This case is one of several brought by biotech companies seeking royalties from the highly profitable COVID-19 vaccines.

In 2022, Pfizer made $11.2 billion from the Comirnaty vaccine, while Moderna made $6.7 billion from the Spikevax vaccine. Sales of vaccines decreased for both companies in the previous year. Pfizer and BioNTech contended that Moderna’s patents were unduly broad and predicated on previous knowledge, and they had asked the Patent Office to examine them.

The Patent Office agreed to review the patents, a process that could take up to 18 months. Judge Stearns concluded that pausing the case would not harm Moderna financially or impede its ability to present evidence later.

Artists Sue Google Over Unauthorised Use of Images to Train AI Generator

On April 29, a group of visual artists filed a copyright lawsuit against Google in California federal court, alleging that the company used their work without permission to train its AI-powered image generator, Imagen.

The plaintiffs, including photographer Jingna Zhang and cartoonists Sarah Andersen, Hope Larson, and Jessica Fink, claim that Google misused “billions” of copyrighted images, including their own, to develop Imagen’s ability to respond to human text prompts.

This case adds to a growing number of significant lawsuits brought by copyright owners against tech companies like Microsoft, OpenAI, and Meta over the data used to train generative AI systems.

Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda defended the company’s practices, stating that their AI models are trained primarily on publicly available information from the internet, which is supported by American law.

The artists’ attorneys, Joseph Saveri and Matthew Butterick, criticized Google, accusing it of training a commercial AI product on copyrighted works without consent, credit, or compensation. Zhang and Andersen are also plaintiffs in a similar ongoing lawsuit against Stability AI and Midjourney for similar allegations.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and demands that Google destroy all copies of the artists’ work used to train Imagen.

ANI Sues PTI for Copyright Infringement Over Video Content

The news agency Asian News International (ANI) has filed a copyright infringement and plagiarism lawsuit against its rival, Press Trust of India (PTI), in the High Court. Justice Mini Pushkarna has directed PTI to respond to the allegations, with the case scheduled for further hearing on August 9.

ANI claims that PTI copied videos of passengers on a Delhi-Darbhanga SpiceJet flight from June 19, which were shot by ANI’s video journalist and published on their social media platforms. Soon after, PTI allegedly published identical videos.

ANI is seeking Rs 2 crore in damages and a permanent injunction to prevent PTI from publishing any of its original content. ANI’s legal team, led by Senior Advocate Chander M Lall and advocate Sidhant Kumar, also demanded an apology from PTI and requested that PTI inform news outlets that had credited the content to PTI that the material was originally ANI’s.

ANI’s lawyers emphasized the need for PTI to take down the videos and acknowledge ANI’s ownership of the content. PTI’s counsel, Rajshekhar Rao, stated that the videos would be removed within 24 hours but argued that an apology was unnecessary, as PTI had attributed the videos to a “third party.”

The court has issued a summons to PTI to address the matter.

Delhi HC Orders Removal of Copyrighted Content from Rogue Websites

In a recent ruling, the Delhi High Court addressed an application filed by several major entertainment companies seeking a permanent injunction against certain rogue cyberlocker websites for copyright infringement.

The plaintiffs, including Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., Amazon Content Services LLC, Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., Disney Enterprises, Inc., Netflix US, LLC, Paramount Pictures Corporation, Universal City Studios Productions LLP, and Apple Video Programming LLC, requested the court to restrain the defendants from uploading, hosting, streaming, or distributing any copyrighted content owned by them.

Justice Anish Dayal ordered the rogue websites—Doodstream.com, doodstream.co, and dood.stream—to remove all listings of the plaintiffs’ copyrighted material. The plaintiffs argued that these websites facilitated unauthorised uploading, sharing, and downloading of their protected works, violating the Copyright Act, 1957.

The court directed the defendants to take down all infringing content as communicated by the plaintiffs’ counsel and to disable features that allowed the regeneration of links or reuploading of such content. Additionally, the court ordered the defendants to file an affidavit, certified by a Chartered Accountant, disclosing the revenues generated by the websites since their launch.

The court also permitted the plaintiffs to monitor the takedown of infringing content on these platforms, ensuring compliance with the court’s directives.

Supreme Court Expands Copyright Damages Recovery

On May 9, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling in Warner Chappell Music Inc. et al. v. Sherman Nealy et al. (No. 22-1078), establishing that copyright owners can recover damages beyond the three-year statute of limitations when the discovery rule applies.

This decision resolves a longstanding split between the Second Circuit, which restricted damages to three years from the start of infringement, and the Eleventh Circuit, which allowed damages to be recovered for more than three years based on when the infringement was discovered.

The case originated in 2018 when Sherman Nealy sued Warner Chappell for using his songs without permission. Nealy argued that he was unaware of the infringement while he was in prison.

Warner Chappell contended that even under the discovery rule, damages should be limited to the three years preceding the lawsuit. However, the Eleventh Circuit sided with Nealy, permitting him to seek damages beyond the typical three-year limit.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed this view, stating that “[t]here is no time limit on monetary recovery,” allowing plaintiffs to recover damages regardless of when the infringement occurred, provided the claims were timely under the discovery rule.

Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Alito dissented, arguing against the application of the discovery rule in copyright cases, asserting that some of Nealy’s claims were time-barred.

This ruling has potentially wide-reaching implications for copyright law, enabling plaintiffs to seek damages beyond the traditional three-year limit, regardless of the circuit.

What’s Next?

Recent copyright infringement cases highlight the critical importance of adhering to copyright principles, particularly when it comes to the use of company logos, designs, and other protectible elements without permission.

These cases underscore the need for a clear understanding of copyright issues, especially in distinguishing between creative expression that is protected under the law and other elements that may not be eligible for protection.

When a copyright infringement lawsuit is initiated, it often centers on whether the alleged infringer has violated the copyright by using such elements without proper authorisation. To prevent copyright violations and safeguard digital content, companies can turn to innovative solutions like Bytescare.

Bytescare’s advanced technologies are designed to protect digital content from unauthorised use, helping to prevent copyright violations before they occur. Book a demo to explore how Bytescare can help protect your digital assets.

FAQs

Reference:

• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/
• https://www.reuters.com/