Author: Paul Richardson

The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed an injunction shutting down movie filtering service VidAngel, Inc. because doing otherwise would create a loophole in copyright law, according to the court.

The Copyright Lawsuits

 Three big movie companies — Warner Bros., Walt Disney Studios, and Twentieth Century Fox — won the case against VidAngel’s attempt to overturn an injunction against it. The three judge panel affirmed the lower court’s injunction and rejected VidAngel’s various defenses, requiring the company remain shut down.

Last December the movie filtering company was forced to close down after a U.S. District Judge ruled that the allegations from several movie studios that VidAngel was violating copyright laws were likely going to succeed. The streaming services offers family-friendly versions of films by filtering out nudity, offensive language, and other inappropriate content from mainstream films. The company does the filtering without a license and claims its service is exempt under the federal Family Movie Act (FMA) from copyright claims. VidAngel also claimed its service is lawfully allowed under the fair use doctrine within copyright law. This doctrine requires some alteration in a copyrighted work that creates a new work.

The court disagreed on both points. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit noted the FMA mandates that a filtering service use an authorized copy of the movie. VidAngel contends that because it decrypts and copies onto a server lawfully purchased DVD copies its service starts with “authorized” copies. Writing the opinion for the panel, Judge Andrew David Hurwitz noted VidAngel’s interpretation of the FMA would create a giant loophole in copyright law that would allow infringement as long as some content is filtered and a lawfully copy of the work was purchased at some point during the process. The judge noted nearly all piracy of movies originates from a legitimate copy of the film. Likewise, unlike the allowable use under the fair use doctrine removing objectionable material did not necessarily create a new work.

A week after the decision, VidAngel launched a new filtering service of Netflix and Amazon. Of note, no court has ruled on the legality of filtering on these platforms. In order to comply with the courts’ injunction, VidAngel must avoid filtering any content owned by the plaintiff studios. These include Lucas Film, Disney, 20th Century Fox, and Warner Bros.

Copyright Attorneys

 If you or someone you know has questions about copyright law or is facing any other issues regarding intellectual property, contact a knowledgeable intellectual property lawyer right away. This area of the law can be confusing and is constantly changing by court rulings. In order to protect yourself and your intellectual property, you should learn about your rights and obligations under the law right away.

Earlier this spring the Georgia Court of Appeals addressed a hot issue in mold personal injury litigation – the sufficiency of evidence to prove causation of a specific injury due to mold exposure. The case that addressed this particular issue was McCarney v. PA Lex Glen, LLC.

The McCarney Case

 The facts in McCarney are part of a common pattern regarding these types of lawsuits. In 2012, the plaintiff moved into an apartment unit in Sandy Springs, Georgia. Prompted by comments from other tenants that mold was present at the complex, McCarney inspected the vents in his apartment and found a black substance, discovered water leaks, and found other issues with the HVAC system. After complaining to management, the complex hired a mold remediation company. McCarney paid out of his own pocket to have his unit tested and shortly thereafter notified the management company he was cancelling his rental contract based, in part, on those results.

Shortly after moving into the Sandy Springs apartment, McCarney suffered sinus issues, which required surgical intervention. The medical issues did not cease while he remained a tenant at the apartment. Consequently, McCarney sued the management company for negligence. The lower trial court ruled in favor of the management company, finding McCarney did not have enough evidence to prove causation, and dismissed the case. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed this decision.

Causation in Mold Injury Cases

 At the onset of its decision, the appellate court noted cases alleging a personal injury due to exposure requires a plaintiff to support his or her case with expert testimony showing there was a “reasonable possibility” the injury was due to the exposure.

In McCarney’s case, testimony from his treating physician, who was an ear, nose and throat (ENT) specialist, showed that mold was removed from the plaintiff’s sinuses during surgery. While the ENT could not say with certainty the mold came from the apartment unit, his opinion was the sinus issues were linked to the tenancy in light of the history of the illness. In fact, the doctor advise McCarney to leave the apartment.

The appellate court also found the doctor’s medical opinion was bolstered by the environmental test results obtained by McCarney, which revealed a high level of mold in the unit. When the evidence was taken together as a whole, the court found McCarney had provided sufficient evidence to allow the case to proceed to trial.

Personal Injury Help

If you or someone you know has been exposed to mold and suffered a personal injury as a result, contact a knowledgeable personal injury attorney right away to learn about your rights under the law.

A recent United States Supreme Court decision rendered earlier this summer held that courts must determine if there is a direct relationship between the alleged conduct and actual harm when deciding if a municipality meets the definition of an “aggrieved person” under the Fair Housing Act, according to an ABA Journal report.

Details of the SCOTUS Decision

 Florida’s city of Miami filed consolidated cases which alleged that Bank of America and Wells Fargo engaged in predatory lending targeted at latinos and blacks. The municipality argued the banks used more predatory conditions on borrowers of color including overstating refinance opportunities, excessively high interest rates, and unjustifiably refusing to finance or modify loans with large minority populations.

At the lower court level, the banks moved to dismiss the cases, which the district court granted. The basis for the dismissal included that the economic harms alleged fell outside of the zone of the FHA protections, and that complaints failed to sufficiently show a causal connection between the injuries and the discriminatory acts. The Atlanta-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed.

These predatory lending practices lead to higher foreclosure rates in neighborhoods with larger minority populations, according to the Eleventh Circuit’s opinion. This increased the need for city services such as fire and building code agencies including law enforcement. The Court of Appeals held the city of Miami met the statute’s definition of an “aggrieved party” based on the allegations that the banks’ predatory lending caused foreseeable damages regarding the municipality’s services.

Other FHA Claims

 Under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), foreseeability is not enough to establish proximate cause. Rather, the SCOTUS held, a direct relationship between the conduct and the injury must be shown. The SCOTUS decision in in Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami, found THAT (1) city of Miami had standing to sue and that its injuries fell under the interests protected by the Act, but (2) in order to establish proximate cause a municipality must do more than show its injuries were foreseeable from the statutory violation.

 Big banks are being hit with lawsuits initiated by municipalities across the country.

Two SCOTUS terms ago, the court ruled 5-4 that disparate-impact claims can be brought under the FHA in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. The question posed in this case was different than that in the consolidated Bank of America and Wells Fargo case.

Discrimination Attorney

If you or someone you know believes he or she has been the victim of discriminatory lending practices, contact a knowledgeable attorney right away to preserve your rights under the law.

The U.S. Department of Education (DoE) has filed a motion for summary judgment (MSJ) in a lawsuit over attorneys who were removed from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. In its MSJ, the DoE is claiming that the American Bar Association, who filed the complaint against the federal agency, sued too soon.

About the Dispute

 Created under the Obama administration, the Public Loan Forgiveness Program allows individual borrowers who work in certain not-for-profit and public service jobs to have the outstanding balance of their school loans forgiven after they have made 120 on-time eligible payments under the program while still working in those eligible jobs.

Last December, the ABA filed a lawsuit against the DoE on behalf of four attorneys, including two former ABA employees whose previously approved Public Loan Forgiveness Program eligibility had been revoked by the DoE. The DoE informed the lawyers that the previously approved employers, which included the ABA, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the Vietnam Veterans of America, did not qualify under the loan forgiveness program as public service organizations that provide public and legal education to the community.

The DoE argues that some interim notifications sent to borrowers had mistakes and the corrections were not new policies applied retroactively. The DoE also argues the ABA’s lawsuit does not fall within the zone of interests protected by the loan forgiveness statute, and its determinations are reasonable when deciding whether or not public service jobs qualify under the program.

The ABA likewise filed a MSJ, asking a judge to require the DoE to stop issuing retroactive denials. Other relief requested included restoring the individual plaintiffs’ eligibility for the loan forgiveness program. Part of the ABA’s concern is that thousands made major life decisions for their careers based on inaccurate information provided by the DoE, taking jobs and uprooting their lives based on this information.

Stay Informed

The decision that will be rendered on this case will have a widespread effect on professionals of all industries – doctors, lawyers, teachers, engineers, etc. – who were under the impression they could have the balance of their student loans forgiven by the DoE if they qualified. To stay informed on the case, follow any news agency reporting on the topic.