Claude v. Crews

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that jurisdiction existed because party “agreed to a dismissal of his remaining claim . . . with prejudice” at oral argument
• holding that where multiple individuals lay claim to a work, \the dispositive inquiry is which of the putative authors is the 'dominant author' \
• holding that \a director's contribution to an integrated 'work of authorship' such as a film is not itself a 'work of authorship' subject to its own copyright protection\
• concluding that defendant’s actions, “however misguided, . . . did not amount to ‘the sort of egregious wrongdoing that might support a tortious interference claim in the absence of an independently unlawful act or evil motive’”
• noting that tortious interference with business relations is “also known as tortious interference with prospective economic advantage”
• noting that where a defendant acts for “normal economic self-interest, wrongful means have not been shown”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).