James Kodadek v. Mtv Networks, Inc., a Corporation Viacom International, Inc., a Corporation Mike Judge

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding no qualitative difference from copyright claim where TV station affirmatively gave credit to another defendant rather than plaintiff
• finding that an unfair competition claim “based on purported violations of the California Business & Professions Code” was “preempted by the federal Copyright Act”
• noting that for purposes of a preemption analysis the court does not analyze a cause of action in the abstract but instead “examine[s] the nature” of plaintiffs claim “to discern what rights [plaintiff] seeks to enforce with state law”
• finding plaintiff’s UCL claim preempted 26 where it was “based solely on rights equivalent to those protected by the federal copyright laws.”
• finding plaintiff’s UCL claim preempted 26 where it was “based solely on rights equivalent to those protected by the federal copyright laws.”
• drawings made in 1993 from memory of drawings originally made in 1991 did not satisfy deposit requirement because they were not made by “directly referring to the originals,” nor were they “bona fide copies of the originals”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).